Philebus; with introd. and notes by Charles Badham

᾿

NY

SS
ot
—
aS
a

ee

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

vit
“htt
ae a ἥ

ps://archive.org/details/philebuswithintrOOplatuoft

Ἢ fatale
Ca Ws

ier
TF a εν

A
x

AND NOTES”

BY

CHARLES BADHAM DD.

HEAD MASTER OF BIRMINGHAM AND EDGBASTON PROPRIETARY SCHOOL

ἧς. LONDON. |
NW PARKER AND soN west STRAND

pe
" ἈΠΕ γὼ
ΟῚ
» ἰ! ε
ἷ΄ te
ν᾽ ai) ͵
4 :
vA Ve Pile: ip
τω aes ee
Ϊ So :
ee
uses. ~ » ἘΞ a ων

ee i we ie

Wao ae %

LONDON:

SAVILL AND EDWARDS, PRINTERS, CHANDOS STREET,
COVENT GARDEN.

W277

Pa
j aed

INTRODUCTION.

Ἢ r JHE aim of this noble Dialogue is to ascertain the relation of
“1 pleasure and of intelligence to the absolute Good. The fori
__ of the inquiry is a controversy between Socrates and two young
_ Athenians named Philebus and Protarchus. The latter takes up

the cause which his friend had espoused, but found it too much
trouble to maintain, and affirms that pleasure, using the word in
its largest sense, is entitled to the name of good; to which
Socrates advances an opposite claim upon behalf of science,

intelligence, and all kindred species ; observing, that if it

should prove that some third thing had a better title than

either, then whichever of the two original claimants should be

found most akin to the successful species would be entitled to
_ the second prize. fProtarchus is then reminded of the great
variety and discrepancy in the kinds of pleasure, and is invited to
show what common nature there is in all these, in virtue of
which they are entitled to receive, in addition to their name of
pleasure, the name of good. In reply, he denies that there is any
variety or discrepancy between them, in so far as they are plea-
sures. Socrates shows the fallacy of this, and points out that
this reliance upon the identity implied by a common name, as if
it excluded all diversity, would put an end to all reasoning. This
leads to the mention of the great problem about identity and
diversity, the delight of young arguers and the terror of quiet,
respectable people, the argument of ἕν καὶ πολλά. The contra-
diction between the individual as one in nature, and yet many in
his many changes of circumstance, and that between the whole

| καὶ The bearing of this discussion on the main subject is twofold. The
_ importance of the πέρας in dialectics is a suitable introduction to the part
_ which it is to play in physics; and the necessity of the careful division of
| pleasure under its several heads is shewn beforehand.

ἘΝ — ie ἀν

as one and the Bg as ‘many, u
affirms that men now look upon these as ὁ 1
but that there are other forms of the contradiction
more important. For if we consider any genus or idea
itself, and then again observe that the jeresancalieen of ita
many and unlimited, it is difficult to conceive how this one, wi a
the same time that it remains one in itself, is yet one in all the
individuals and in each of them. This contradiction is the inhe- —
rent and unchangeable property of all objects of reasoning; but
though as such we cannot remove it, there is a remedy provided
against its practical difficulty. For while all things are consti-
tuted out of the one and the many, they have associated in their
constitution the limit and the indefinite. We must therefore, in
all investigation, take first some one single kind or nature, which
we are sure to find if we look for it ; from this we must proceed to
the next definite number supplied by the object itself in its own
natural divisions, and so, continually advancing through all sub-
ordinate divisions, to-go on till we arrive at the point where the
limit or given numbers cease, and the unlimited begins. This
process from the one to the indefinite by means of number, or the
contrary process from the indefinite to the one, is the dialectical
method, the origin of all discovery, and the opposite of that
sophistical manner which passes immediately from either extreme
to the other. Socrates beautifully exemplifies this position by
language, music, metre, and the art of writing; and proposes that
the two claimants of the good should be subjected to the same
method. But finding that Protarchus is scared by the difficulty
of the undertaking, he professes to remember a shorter solution
of the question before them, by which it can be shown that neither
pleasure nor intelligence can hope for the first prize. It lies in —
the very conception of the good that it should be perfect and self-
sufficient. But if we take either pleasure or intelligence in per- |
fect ‘violation from each other, they are insufficient and imperfect ;
for no one would accept pleasure alone as all in all, if he had no
memory nor consciousness, nor any faculty by which he could be ~
cognisant of the pleasure enjoyed. Nor would any one accept a
life of mere intelligence without the least admixture of feeling.
To either of these states of being, all men would certainly prefer
a combination of the two; therefore each has failed in its preten-

τ We,

INTRODUCTION, Vv

ions to be the absolute good. But which comes the nearest to the
mark? That which has most right to be considered the cause of
the combination, or to have most affinity with that cause. Thus
we are led to inquire into the nature of combination itself, and
the laws which belong to it. Now it has already been said, that
_ the limit and the indefinite * are the elements out of which all ©
_ things are combined ; these, therefore, will be the two first kinds
which we must consider; the union of these two will be the third,
and the cause which effects that union, the fourth,

Every quality of matter considered in its abstraction, extends
indefinitely in the direction of two opposites, as in the instances of
moister and drier,f hotter and colder, &c, The attempt to limit
it at once dissolves the abstraction, because it fixéd to a point
that which is only conceivable as continually capable of more and
less, All things which thus admit of more and less are compre-
hended in one idea, and receive the name of the indefinite, τὸ
ἄπειρον. The opposites of these are the things which admit of
equality and proportion, and these are classed under the name of
the limit, τὸ πέρας or περατοειδές. The examples of this kind can
only be seen at the same time with the third kind, that is to say,
in combinations of τὸ ἄπειρον and τὸ πέραρ. In music, bodily
health and strength and beauty, the temperature of the seasons,
and above all, in the instance of pleasure, which would be ab-
sorbed in its own indefinite cravings, but for the imposition of
law and order to limit and preserve it, in all such instances where
qualities are blended with definite proportion, we see at once the
second element of the combination, and the result of that combi-
nation in a certain γένεσις. In the fourth place there must be a
cause of such combinations; for that which is made cannot be
the same as that which makes, but must always be subsequent to

* This doctrine Plato is said to have borrowed from the Pythagorean
Philolaus, who, through extreme poverty, consented to sell him the book
in which he had embodied the doctrines of his sect.—See Diog. Laert. in
Philolaus.

τῇ The comparatives of all such words are used by Plate because the
positive might be misunderstood as implying a πόσον, or definite quantity,

‘ or proportion ; but afterwards, he uses the positive, ἐν δ᾽ ὀξεῖ καὶ βαρεῖ καὶ
ταχεῖ καὶ βραδεῖ ἀπείροις οὖσιν.

Ἶ πέρας is properly the ἐδέα, or that according to which they are one,
and meparoeides, the γένος: τὰ περατοειδῇ again would be the γέννα, which we
_ must not confound with γένος, as Ast and others have done, but which
| is the multitude in the γένος, its numerous specimens.

| b

it.* Therefore we may consider the first three kinds to be the ele- Ὁ
ments of natural things, and the natural things themselves; but
the fourth kind is that which operates with and upon them. The
question then arises, to which of these four the mixed life of
pleasure and intelligence bears most resemblance. It is decided
that it resembles most the third kind or the combination. Plea-
sure again seems most akin to the indefinite. The kind which
answers to intelligence is not so evident, and Socrates warns his
friend against any rashness in the decision, as touching upom
impiety. The gay Philebus laughs at his scruples, but Pro-
tarchus has more reverence, and is so awestruck by Socrates's
manner, that he is afraid to make any conjecture. Then Socrates
declares that his own solemnity was all in sport, and that. it is no
wonder if philosophers are so ready to pay themselves a compliment,’
in declaring Intelligence to be the King of the Universe ;t but
that it is worth while to see what right it has to the designation.
Protarchus is then asked to choose between two opinions; one
that the universe is subject to chance and blind caprice, and the
other, that it is governed by mind and intelligence. He un-
hesitatingly chooses the latter. But, argues Socrates, in this
universe there are the same elements which we also find in the
constitution of our own earth, only that here they are found in a
poor and scanty state, in the universe they are beautiful and
abundant. Now the terrestrial elements must have been derived
from the universal ones, the earthly body from the body of the
world: but our body has a soul which it must have also derived
from the same source; for if the four kinds above enumerated,
when brought into action by the power of the fourth, earn for
themselves even in this earth the name of Wisdom by acts of
creation and restoration, much rather in the universal body and
its mighty members in which they exist pure and undebased,
will they have wrought all that is precious and beautiful. It
follows from this, that the cause which is the chief of the four

* This passage, as well as that in the commencement of the Timeus, are
conclusive against the pretence that Plato was a Pantheist ; and that what-
ever militates against pantheistic notions in the Zaws (see Book 10),
must be ascribed to Philip of Opus.

_ + This is the second instance in this dialogue where Plato has contrived
incidentally to point out that a distinction is to be drawn between the

human intelligence and the divine. In the séquel he shows what that
distinction is. : : : ᾿

INTRODUCTION. vii

kinds will be supreme in heaven and in earth, being the essence
of the mind and of the soul of Zeus himself.* The result of this
| inquiry is to establish that intelligence rules over all things, and
that our intelligence -is akin to the fourth or highest kind into

_ which all things were divided. The next step is to consider plea-

4 sure and intelligence not abstractedly, but as they are. First it

_ is observed concerning pleasure, that it arises when the consti-

tuent elements of the creature return towards harmony; but when

_ that harmony is more or less dissolved, pain is the consequence.

_ This is illustrated by hunger, thirst, heat, and cold, im all which

there is a tendency to some loss or dissolution, which is pain, and

in the relief of which there is a return to natural completeness,

which return is pleasure. The second kind of pleasure and pain is

in expectation; this kind belongs to the soul, without the body

_ participating init. These two classes are considered sufficient for

the purpose intended, and another observation is added, of which

Protarchus is told that he will see the importance further on. It

is, that there must be an intermediate state of the body, when it

is tending neither towards completeness nor dissolution of any

part; when there is this state there can be neither pleasure nor

pain. Such a state is quite compatible with a life of mere intel-

ligence; it is also such a life as we may conceive the gods

to possess.t This, therefore, is another point in favour of νοῦς

in its competition for the second prize.

But im the second kind of pleasure, that which is from

expectation and belongs to the soul, the nature of pleasure

and its relation to νοῦς is destined to become more apparent.

Expectation of pleasure must depend upon memory (that is, not
recollection, but the state which is the necessary condition of
recollection), and this memory presupposes sensation. If the
body alone is affected, and the movement does not reach to the
mind, there is no sensation and no memory. In addition to

* That is, of the highest mundane divinity. The argument is, that
αἰτία ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ is the pit Sage kind; but αἰτία is νοῦς, and νοῦς is inseparable
from ψυχὴ ; consequently, αἰτία is the ground of the highest νοῦς and ψυχή
ie., that of Ζεύς.

+ Page 33, St. The sense I have given here is not very clearly ex-
“sei im the original as it now stands; it would come out much more
_ forcibly by a very slight change. Οὐκοῦν otros ἂν ἐκείνῳ re ὑπάρχοι καὶ
᾿ ἴσως ovdev ἄτοπον εἰ πάντων τῶν βίων ἐστὶ θειότατος.

b2

viii INTRODUCTION.

sensation, which is the common movement of body and soul, —
and memory, which is the preservation of sensation, we must
also notice recollection, which is the rehearsal by the soul alone
of the sensations which it formerly had in common with the
body; and lastly, desire. For desire also is a property of the
soul and not of the body, as may be shown thus: We desire the
opposite of that which we feel; but desire implies memory of
the thing desired; for all our relations to things desirable must
be either through sensation or through memory: but sensation
is occupied with the present state, and desire is of the opposite
to the present state; therefore, it must be through memory that
desire is brought into relation with the thing desired; and hence
it follows that desire does not belong to the body but the soul.
Another state of pleasure and pain is, when the body suffers
through a present void, and the soul is conscious of a former
satisfaction ; in such a case, if there is hope of the satisfaction,
the memory of it affords a pleasure simultaneous with the bodily
pain; but if there be no hope, then there is the double pain of
the present void in the body, and of the unattainable satisfaction
to the soul. The great importance of this observation is, that
it will enable us to answer a question without which we cannot
hope to bring the controversy to an issue: Are there false plea-
sures? Protarchus denies this, and affirms that perceptions
may be true or false, but that pleasures are all true. And yet,
says Socrates, we speak of the pleasures of dreams or of madness
as false. But if it be objected that pleasure is still pleasure
though the subject of the pleasure is false, the same may be said
of perceptions. And if again it should be said that, in such a
case, the perception is false though real, but the pleasure is true
as well as real, this must be shown to arise from some peculiarity
in the nature of pleasure. But we do not find any such; for
they admit of all other differences, such as great and small, and
good and bad. There are also correct and mistaken pleasures
following on correct and mistaken perceptions. And here it is
worth while to consider the nature of perceptions altogether.
What we perceive, results from a comparison of that which we
see or feel with that which we remember. This perception we
record to ourselves or to others. Now, suppose the former case ;
then a man carries the record about with him; and it may be

-

INTRODUCTION. ix

aid to be written on his soul. Besides this power which writes
impressions upon us, there is another which paints them; that is
_ the power by which we recal the very images to the fancy which
_ we formerly beheld with our eyes; and when the perceptions are
false, these images will be also false. Among these impressions
and images there will be some which have reference to future
- time, and these are called hopes. The good man will have true
hopes and true images of the future, and the bad will have false
ones. But these images are pleasures, for it was admitted before
that some pleasures arose from expectation; consequently, there
are false pleasures, which bad men have, and which are the carica-
tures of the true pleasures of good men. Having established
this analogy between perception and pleasure, Socrates argues,
that as only those perceptions, which do not answer to things
past or present or future, but are false, are admitted to be bad, so
those pleasures only, which are in like manner false, are bad also.
Protarchus objects to this, that the badness of pleasures has very
little to do with their falsehood; but Socrates defers his answer
to a later stage in the controversy, and proceeds to another and
stronger proof of the possibility of the falsehood of pleasure.
When the body is in pleasure, and the soul at the same time is
apprehensive of pain, or the body is in pain and the soul antici-
_ pating pleasure, the simultaneous presence of pleasure and pain will
produce a similar effect to the illusion of the eyes when they
attribute greater comparative size to near objects and less to
those more distant. For the immediate pleasures or pains will
seem greater than they are, in proportion to those expected; but
that degree of pleasure or pain by which they exceed their pro-
portion will be false, and cause a false perception: so that not
only false perceptions cause false pleasures and pains, but also
false pleasures and pains cause false perceptions. The strongest
example of falsehood in pleasure is that which is next adduced.
If we suppose a state in which there is no change either towards
satisfaction or dissolution, such a state will be one devoid both
of pleasure and pain. Now it is true that they who maintain the
doctrine of a perpetual flux* deny the possibility of such a motion-

* The schools of Heraclitus and Protagoras. Theetet. 152, 180.
Sophist, 146. |

x INTRODUCTION. a

: vet »"
less state; but it will be enough to suppose that the motion or |
change is not great enough to reach the sense and the soul; and —
that there is such a condition nobody will deny. Ifa man in
this state should say that he has pleasure, he would say what is
false, and the pleasure which he speaks of would be false. But
this is the very thing which happens when a man is relieved from
pain without the acquisition of pleasure, and calls this negative
state by the name of pleasure; for this supposed pleasure is false, —
since that which is neither pleasure nor pain cannot become either.
But there is another set of teachers* who tell us that these things
which we have been considering as three, are only two; that plea-
sure is a mere illusion, and is nothing more than the removal of
pain. Though we shall find reasons for disagreeing with them,
they have something to teach us. For if we would judge of plea-
sure we must take the highest degree of it. Now the highest
degree of pleasure is that which follows the gratification of the
strongest desire; but the strongest desires are in morbid condi-
tions of the body. Upon this, Socrates enters into a painfully
vivid description of the mingled sensations which are produced
by the application of relief to an itching surface or an inward
irritation, and of the intense pleasure alternating with pain which
men in these cases experience. In all such instances the pain is
the condition of the pleasure; and these may be classed with the
former examples where the body and the soul were differently
affected, either mingling its pleasure with the pain of the other.
Then again, the soul by itself has pleasures inseparable from
pains; for of this nature are all the passions. Such is the sweet-
ness of anger, and the indulgence of violent grief, and the mimic
sympathies with tragical heroes. Nay, in comedy, also, the same
principle is at work ; for ridicule is of that which is evil; for the
ignorant conceit of men about their wealth or their bodily per-
fections, or their wisdom, is evil, and these are the objects of
ridicule. When, therefore, we laugh at our friend’s ignorance, |
we have pleasure, for laughter is a sign of pleasure; but we have
also pain, for to take pleasure in a friend’s evil is called φθόνος ;
but φθόνος is itself a pain of the soul. Thus we see that those |

* Antisthenes and the Cynics, A saying is attributed to Antisthenes
᾿ paveiny μᾶλλον ἢ ἡσθείην. Diog. Laert. 6, 3. ἊΝ

~ INTRODUCTION. xi

- n despisers of pleasure are so far right, that there are many
6 pemncie kinds of it, which owe their very intensity to the pain
2 which they are connected. But they have overlooked others
| Εις are not so; pure pleasures not resulting from any previous
_ perceptible want, such as those of sight, when its objects are
beautiful outline or beautiful colour, unassociated with objects of
desire ; those of hearing, which are of the same kind, and those
of smelling. (It is remarkable that touch and taste are excluded
from this list.) And lastly, there are the intellectual pleasures,
which are not preceded by any painful want, nor their loss fol-
lowed ‘by any sense of void. Such being the impure and the pure
pleasures respectively, which are most truly pleasures? Asa
little white, if perfectly unmixed, is more truly white than ever so
great a quantity having the admixture of some other colour, so
| _ pure and unmixed pleasure, however small, is more truly pleasure
| than a mixed kind, however great. Consequently, when we come
_ to the comparison of pleasure and intelligence (in order to
determine which of the two is the predominant element in that
third state, which ‘was found better than either), we shall have to

_ remember that the pure pleasure 15 the true kind, and, therefore,
_ that by which we must make our judgment. But before the
judgment commences, Socrates proposes two more reflections
concerning pleasure. All things may be divided into these two
classes; that which is for the sake of something else, and that
for the sake of which something else is. The former will include
γένεσις, temporal existence, that which is ever becoming; the
latter, οὐσία, eternal being, that which 7s; indeed, the whole of
the former is for the sake of the latter. But the good musi be
that for the sake of which other things are, whereas pleasure, we
are told by certain ingenious men,* is a γένεσις; but.if so, it-will
be in the opposite class ‘to that of the good. And again, if plea-
sure be a γένεσις, they who make it a good, and pursue it, are
| most irrational; for they desire the opposite state to pleasure
' (want or desire), on the relief of which the generation of pleasure
depends; but this opposite state to generation is corruption; so

* On second thoughts I am inclined to adopt Trendelenburg’s opinion,
that Aristippus is meant; but if 80, what a severe reflection is passed _ on

| him in the words δῆλον. γὰρ ὅτι οὗτος τῶν toendorey ἡδονὴν ἀγαθὸν εἶναι
ο΄ καταγελᾷ.

“τ

xl INTRODUCTION.

that those who choose pleasure as the good, choose generation —
and corruption rather than pure being. There are many other
absurdities following on the supposition that pleasure is the good,
but the greatest, and indeed the sum of them all, is that, if it
were so, a man would be good in proportion to the pleasure of
which he partook, and bad in the opposite proportion.

The next step is, to subject νοῦς and ἐπιστήμη to the same
process, and to ascertain if it also contains purer and impurer
kinds. Science is divided into the productive and the instructive.
In the former class, some are more immediately associated with
mathematical science, and others are content, to a great degree,
with mere guesswork and practical skill. Such a difference
marks some as more, and others as less, pure. But the mathe-
matical sciences themselves may be viewed either as they are
conversant with absolute properties of figure and number, or as
dealing with figures and numbers in the concrete; so that we
may say there is a twofold arithmetic and a twofold geometry ;
and in like manner of other mathematical sciences, of which the
one is pure, the other impure. But, above all others, the pure
science is dialectic; for it is that which has for its object the
absolute, invariable, and eternal, and therefore seeks after the
truest of all knowledge. Other sciences may be more immedi-
ately useful or imposing, but this is more truly science than all
others; for they depend on notions, and are busied about phe-
nomenal existence. Having now the pure and impure of both
kinds, we are ready to mix them so as to effect that combination
of which the third state consisted. But which shall we mix?
And first, of intelligence and science, shall only the purer parts
enter into the combination? If it were so, there would be an
end to all practical life, which is obliged to content itself with
the imperfect and impure sciences. Therefore we are compelled
to admit into the combination both parts of science and intelli-
gence. Shall we do the same with pleasure? Certainly not;
for while pleasures themselves would desire an union with intel-
ligence, as that which should give a meaning to themselves,
intelligence would reject all impure and tumultuous delights, as
hindering its efforts and stifling its productions; but with the tem-
perate and healthful pleasures, and such as walk in the train of
virtue, as priestesses in the procession of some deity, with these it

INTRODUCTION. xl

15 willing to have fellowship. Having, then, the elements of the
- mixture, it remains for us to inquire according to what law they
must be combined. Now, first, no combination can be worth
anything which is not a true blending: truth, therefore, is a
necessary condition; and if it is a condition of combination,
and the good lies in combination, we must look for the good in
truth. Again, no mixture can be successful which is without
measure; on measure and proportion all combination depends,
and in these, therefore, the good must abide. Lastly, the effect of
measure and proportion is symmetry and beauty; and thus we con-
clude that in these also the good is to be found. And now,
having not indeed a perfect comprehension of the good,* but a
knowledge of those three things in which it manifests itself, we
may endeavour to decide the question, which of the two, pleasure
or intelligence, is most akin to it. This is easily determined, for
pleasure is false and fickle, but intelligence is either the same as
truth or the nearest akin to it: pleasure is in its own nature
immoderate, but intelligence and science depend upon measure ;
pleasure has so little claim to beauty, that it often shuns the
light, and its expression is always unseemly, but intelligence
is a stranger to all that is not comely and decent. Upon arriving
at this conclusion of the whole argument, Socrates delivers the
joint decision of the disputants in these words: πάντῃ δὴ φήσεις,
ὦ Πρώταρχε, ὑπό τ᾽ ἀγγέλων πέμπων καὶ παροῦσι φράζων, we
ἡδονὴ κτῆμ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι πρῶτον οὐδ᾽ αὖ δεύτερον, ἀλλὰ πρῶτον μέν
πῃ περὶ μέτρον καὶ τὸ μέτριον καὶ καίριον καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὅποσα τοιαῦτα
χρὴ νομίζειν τὴν ἀΐδιον ἡρῆσθαι φύσιν. We shall presently
have to consider the exact reading and interpretation of these
words; it is sufficient for the summary of the dialogue which I
have attempted to give, if we gather from them that measure and
things partaking of the nature of measure are declared to be the
nearest approach to the good; next to this, and in the second
place, Socrates places the beautiful, the symmetrical, the suf-
ficient, and complete; the third prize is given to intelligence
and thought; the fourth to sciences, arts, and right conceptions ;
and the fifth to the purer pleasures. The dialogue concludes
with a short recapitulation, and a noble warning, in forming our

* Which Plato thought unattainable. See Republic, vi. 508, 509.

judgment of pleasure, not to rely, as the meaner soothsayers do, a
on the teaching of irrational natures, but on the eee of “a Ἵ
philosophic Muse.

Of the difficulties presented by this diskoguse none is $0 inupocli
and at the same time, so perplexing, as the assignment of places to
the five different kinds. The classification proposed by Ast needs
only to be stated for any attentive reader to see that it is perfectly
irreconcilable with the words of Plato, and with the whole tenor of
the argument. He arranges them thus:—1. The definite, which
is the νοῦς βασιλεὺς, the controlling and arranging principle of
the world; 2. The indefinite, which is the material substratum
on which the supreme intelligence is exercised; 3. The Real
Synthesis of the two former, the Pythagorean κόσμος; 4. The —
Ideal Synthesis, the human intelligence as the reflex of the
divine; 5. Pleasure. Nothing, as Trendelenburg observes, can
be more remote from the terms σύμμετρον and καλὸν, than the
formless and discordant elements of matter; nor are vove and
φρόνησις capable of being understood as the world of beauty and
harmony, the living work of the supreme mind. Such manifest
violence to the plain words of the author can only be accounted
for by the desire of making a system for Plato, and the vain notion
of helping out his supposed imperfect strivings after a regular
gradation from the most absolute intellectual to the most sensual.
Schleiermacher proceeded on a much more reverent and sounder
principle. It seemed to him very remarkable that the two
competitors whose relative claims the whole dialogue is occupied in
discussing, should appear at the end not as the second and third, but
as the fourth and fifth How could the introduction of these
new claimants be accounted for? His answer is, that we must
look for the explanation to those treatises to which the Philebus
is intended to be subordinate and introductory, the Timeus and
the Republic. As in the former Plato proposed to give an
account of the constitution of the world, and in the latter, that of
human society, he prepares us for both by intimating that in
the gradation of good that which is universal must be placed
before that which concerns men in particular. He accounts for
the third place only being assigned to νοῦς and φρόνησις by
observing that it is not the divine mind which is here intended,

INTRODUCTION. ; xy

but that ‘mind, which is itself an element in the combination.
_ This mind, according to him, is the truth spoken of above as one
of the three conditions of the mixture. ‘For the mind is the
| sole place of Truth, which first gives a reality to things, and
therefore, as a kind of mediator, it occupies a middle place
between the universal generated good, and the particular good of
man. Few readers will be satisfied with an explanation which
accounts forthe introduction of new and important matter into the
very conclusion of an argument, by supposing an anticipation of
‘what is to be said ‘elsewhere. ‘There would be an end to the unity
of the dialogue, and, indeed, to all the laws of disputation, if we
are suddenly to be informed of some most important doctrines,
‘the proof of which we are left to guess (for no promise of the
kind is held out) may be forthcoming on a future occasion.
But the distribution of Schleiermacher is likewise so far unsatis-
factory, that he does not explain in what the second class differs
from the first. But I cannot assent to Trendelenburg’s objection to
this view of the third class, that the mind, which gives reality to
things is the supreme Mind, and consequently can have nothing to
do with the νοῦς and φρόνησις, which partake of the combination.
For it is evident that the meaning of Schleiermacher is, that the
mind here spoken of gives to us a sense of the reality of things,
and is therefore convertible with ἀλήθεια, and a fit intermediate
between the Universe and Man. But this question will be better
discussed when we have examined Trendelenburg’s own classi-
fication. He understands the μέτρον καὶ μέτριον κ. é. to include
all the three conditions of the admixture; for, according to his
view, the first class contains the absolute Idea of Good and all
those Ideas which are connected with it; and the second, in his
opinion, differs from the first, as'the realization of these same Ideas
in the Universe. But it is unaccountable why Plato, if he had
intended the καλὸν and ἀλήθεια to occur twice in his enume-
ration, should have suppressed the latter altogether, and men-
tioned the former only in its secondary phasis; and altogether
it is a strange way of indicating the same things, first, as absolute,
and then as manifested in forms, by a perfectly distinct set of names.
But the whole hypothesis rests on a translation which the words
above quoted will not bear: “et quidquid ejusmodi eternam

naturam suscepisse credendum est.” In the first place, ὅποσα χρὴ

τοιαῦτα νομίζειν κ. ἑ. cannot be taken thus; for this would be
expressed by ὅποσα, τοιαῦτ᾽ ὄντα, χρὴ vouifev,—and though the
order might be changed, the participle would be indispensable.*
But even if we conceded such an interpretation, what would
become of πρῶτον μέν πῃ περὶ pérpov? It is obvious that, in
such a case, περὶ has no meaning nor construction. But, above
all, such an expression as, “to have adopted (or received) the
eternal nature,” is at varianee with the whole method of Plato.
For if the Good is to be sought for in these, it must be because
they are emanations or productions of it; whereas, according to
this view, the Good is superadded to them, and that through
their seeking it. But no one conversant with the language will

understand ἡρῆσθαι in the sense of παρειληφέναι, or still less οὗ

εἰληχέναι. And then, again, why have we the perfect? In
speaking of a fact which has no reference to any particular
time, the only proper tense would have been ἑλέσθαι. Those
who feel these objections will not need to have them con-
firmed by a consideration of the unsuitableness of the sense thus
extorted from them; and yet the sense is in itself very objec-
tionable, because it would amount to this,—that Plato having
sought, by a laborious argument, for that which had most affinity
with the Good, at last found it—in the Idea of the Good! The
continual allusions to this search, finding its neighbourhood,
coming to its threshold, its taking refuge with the Beautiful and
the like, all point to the true reading of the passage, which, by
the slight change of ‘HIP into “HYP, removes all the objections
alleged above. It will not be necessary to do more than point
out the other misconceptions on which Trendelenburg’s expla-
nations are built—the supposed opposition between ἡρῆσθαι and
γενεᾶς, which is annihilated by the particle αὖ, which shows that

* The order has heen changed, and most injuriously to the sense, on the
authority of the Bodleian MS., from τοιαῦτα χρὴ to χρὴ τοιαῦτα. Χρὴ

νομίζειν 15 plain enough when used of some conclusion, which but for the

argument, they would not have admitted. But what force or even sense is
there in saying, ‘all such things as we are bound to believe to have taken
upon themselves the eternal nature?’ It is therefore evident that we must
read ὅποσα τοιαῦτα, and understand ἐστί.

INTRODUCTION. Xvi

mother kind is spoken of—the notion that the third kind is the

lea considered subjectively, the Idea in so far as it is the ground
of human knowledge:—if this is not the very Idea, it is a mere ©
abstraction, and Plato would not bid us look for the good in
- that.

Stallbaum’s view will be at once understood from the
classification with which he accompanies that of Plato. 1. τὸ
αἴτιον. 2. τὸ ξυμμισγόμενον. 3. τὸ αἴτιον καὶ τὸ πέρας. 4. τὸ
καθαρὸν πέρας. 5. τὸ καθαρὸν ἄπειρον. Those who look for reali-
ties in Plato, and who believe that Plato looked for them himself,
will never be brought to admit that his own desire—paety πειρᾶσθαι
τί ποτε ἐν τ᾽ ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ τῷ παντὶ πέφυκεν ἀγαθὸν, καὶ τίν᾽ ἰδέαν
αὐτὴν εἶναί ποτε μαντευτεόν“----οοὐ]ἃ be satisfied with a barren dia-
lectic scheme, or that he would offer such a result to his readers.
There is not a single hint (and we know how fond Plato is of
_ hints) to show that he any longer dwells upon the fourfold divi-
τς sion of γένη, propounded before. Nor does the classification of
Stallbaum at all tally with that of Plato; for τὸ μέτρον καὶ τὸ
μέτριον καὶ τὸ καίριον καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὅποσα τοιαῦτα is such a way of
expressing the Idea of the Good (which Stallbaum rightly looks upon
as synonymous with airia)* as never anyone would have thought
of, unless he had been predetermined by some theory to find that
meaning in the words: and this remark applies to many other
interpreters of the passage under consideration.t As to the second
class, τὸ ξυμμισγόμενον is, doubtless, equivalent to τὰ ὄντα ; but
I deny that ra dvra are intended, or could be conveyed by such a
periphrasis as, τὸ σύμμετρον καὶ καλὸν, kal τὸ τέλεον, καὶ τὸ ἱκανὸν,

καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὅποσα τῆς γενεᾶς αὖ ταύτης ἐστίν. The only observation
᾿ that need be made as to the third class, is, that it is a confusion in
place of adivision. The νοῦς, which is αἰτία, may be considered as
πέρας, that is, the absolute Mind may be thought of only as con-
templating its own Ideas. And, again, the νοῦς, which is πέρας,
may be considered as so far airia, that it imitates the productions

* Phed. 97, foll. Tim. 30. A. Rep. 508. foll, Nevertheless, I entirely
agree with Trendelenburg, that τἀγαθὸν and ὁ δημιουργὸς were held by Plato
to be quite distinct.

+ The very multiplication of kindred adjectives is a proof that we are to
find one object in many, not to contemplate an Idea in itself.

ν 8e08

of the Principal Mind; but the latter is identical with the fourth —
class, or ἐπιστῆμαι, and the former is liable to the same objection
- as Trendelenburg’s explanation ; namely, that such a view sup- —
poses us to look for the good im that which is no thing, but the _
mere common name or property of two things. I will now ven-
ture to offer my own solution of these difficulties. |
᾿ς The good which appeared most suitable for man was found —
in the combination of two human conditions. It is rea-
sonable, then, to expect that in combination universally we
approach most nearly to the Universal Good; but combination
depends upon three things—Measure, Symmetry, Truth: and
wherever we trace these, the Good cannot be far off. Now, we
trace measure in τὸ μέτριον, τὸ καίριον, and all that evinces adap-
tation of one to another; symmetry in τὸ καλὸν, τὸ ἵκανόν, τὸ
τέλεον, and all that is complete and harmonious im itself; truth
(subjective) im the νοῦς καὶ φρόνησις of man, as that wherein the
real is distinguished from the seeming, and the eternal from the
accidental: Nove δ᾽ ἤτοι ταὐτὸν καὶ ἀλήθειά ἐστιν, ἢ πάντων
ὁμοιότατον. But why do they occur in this order? Not because
there is any superiority of πρέσβεια or δύναμις in any of the
kinds, as in the case of τἀγαθόν, but because there is a difference
between them as to priority in thought or because the sphere in
which they are exhibited differs as to extent. Everything in the
whole universe presents an example of τὸ μέτριον in some form
or other; this, therefore, comes first. One of the results of this
adaptation is the perfection of individual things as to beauty or
use (rd ἵκανον) : and this, being a result and part of the former,
is placed after it. The least. comprehensive of the three circles is
Mind and Thought; it is therefore put into the third place; and
having been thus used as the place in which Truth is to be found,
it is not repeated again in the fourth, but its subordinates,
Science, Art, and True Conceptions, are left by themselves. Nor
are we unprepared for this division, since all along νοῦς has been
hovering between the Human, in which it is placed, and the
Divine, of which it. bears the name and likeness; and when the
corresponding division to that of ἡδοναὶ had to be made, it was
made not in νοῦς, which did not admit of it, but in the ἐπιστῆμαι.
The pure pleasures will naturally come next in order.

xix

way of explaining the enumeration of the classes is very
nt from that which is given in an author quotes by Stobeeus
|. Eth, ii. 6, 4, πρῶτον piv yap ἀγαθὸν τὴν ἰδέαν αὐτὴν
ἱποφαίνεται, ὅπερ ἐστὶ θεῖον καὶ χωριστόν' δεύτερον δὲ τὸ ἐκ
op Diag καὶ ἡδονῆς σύνθετον, ὅπερ ἐνίοις δοκεῖ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν
εἶναι τέλος τῆς ἀνθρωπίνου ζωῆς" τρίτον αὐτὴν καθ᾽ αὑτὴν τὴν
φρόνησιν" τέταρτον τὸ ἐκ τῶν ἐπιστημῶν καὶ τεχνῶν σύνθετον"
πέμπτον αὐτὴν καθ᾽ αὑτὴν τὴν ἡδονήν. This division is expressly
referred to the Philebus; but when we consider that the writer
was himself making a system of Plato’s definitions, and dividing
_ them under the heads τῷ γένει, τοῖς τόποις, τοῖς εἴδεσι, We are
_ prepared for a little straining of his author to suit his theory.
The objections to this theory are the same as have been urged
against Stallbaum, and may be summed up in this, that such a
division is not reconcilable with the language of Plato. At the
same time, I do not deny that the measure, and all its cognates,
are, according to Plato, the nearest approach to the Idea, nor
| that the κοινὸς βίος as ἵκανον will come under the second deno-
ii mination. It might, indeed, be thought to have an equal right
to the first; but Plato seems to have confined this to the instances
of antecedent suitableness, or of the modes of combination, and
to have reserved for the second those things which owe their own
excellence to such combinations.
Ἷ I have endeavoured thus briefly to discuss the questions which
seemed to pertain to an Introduction; many others bearing upon
the subject—such as the relation of the ἀριθμὸς of Plato to that
of Pythagoras, the views of Plato as to the αἴτιος, and the
extent of his obligation to Philolaus in the doctrine of πέρας
and ἄπειρον, may be learnt with more pleasure and more certainty
from the remains and notices of the Pythagorean philosophy. In
the meantime I have thought’that the reader would not be sorry
to have placed before him such extracts as would enable him to
form some opinion on these points; these extracts will be found
in the Appendix.
Ἢ In arranging the text I have followed the Bodleian manuscript,
as that which, for its antiquity, was most entitled to credit. It
has, however, the defect of many omissions (which are of such a
kind that we may feel sure that there has been an omission in

of πον The pasa ma ther |
but the best copies belonging to it are, the Co
Venetian A and Z. I have admitted no conjectur

into the text, except those already recognised wi !
κῶνον; without informing the reader, τ Ἰὰς

ἜΡΘΒΑΒΤΟΝ, Oct. 19, 18δδ.

ERRATA.

iv, line ‘17, omit to.
ὴ ἦν, line 7 from bottom, for ‘ violation,’ read ‘isolation.’
ο΄, line 14, for ‘fixed,’ read ‘fixes.’
xviii, lines 14 and 27, read “ἱκανόν.
e xviii, line 20, read ‘ πρεσβεία."
_ Page xx, line 6, for ‘A,’ read ‘A’
Page 28, Note 1, read ‘and measure to measure.’
Page 101, Note 1, line 8, Ὁ, read ‘the even number.’
Page 101, line 4, read ‘the odd.’
. 5. - Addenda, line 15, for ‘52,’ read ‘54.’
Addenda, line 16, for ‘54,’ read ‘60,’ and for ‘mdyros,’ read ‘ παντός."

> - τ
πα "- J
τ
=)
a

. 7 as = ’
eve t+

Re.

J

“
©

πη Ae Galea πεν

TA TOY AIAAOTOY ΠΡΟΣΩΠΑ.

ΣΩΚΡΑΤΗΣ, ΠΡΩΤΑΡΧΟΣ,
Be ΦΙΛΗΒΟΣ.

᾿ , 4 ,
σώμεθ᾽ ἑκάτερον;

HPQ. 9 Ilavw μὲν οὗν.

IIpaérapxe] The dialogue is supposed
_ to commence at the moment when So-
_ erates turns from Philebus to Protar-
chus; when the speaker changes his
_ address from one person to another, or
from several to some one or more out
of the whole number, ὦ is often
omitted before the vocative, as in
Parm. 136; Symp. 216, 217; Euthyd.
296; Prot. 358, 359; Phileb. 12 B, 28 B.
The same omission also takes place.
when the speaker is represented as call-
ing in an especial manner on the atten-
tion of the person addressed; as in
Gorgias 489, 521 (where Callicles would
fain let the conversation drop), Symp.
173 A, 175, 213; Huthyd. 293, 294,
295. In Symp. 173 F, if a second
éraipos is speaking (which is probable
_ on other grounds), the omission may be
accounted for in the same manner; but
I confess that in Phedr. 264, Soph.
220, 234, Euthyd. 300, the reason is
not so evident.
ἀγαθόν] Not τἀγαθόν: for Philebus’
assertion is not represented as being

1. “Opa δή, IIpérapyxe, τίνα λόγον μέλλεις παρὰ Φιλή-
Bou δέχεσθαι νυνὶ καὶ πρὸς τίνα τὸν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀμφισβητεῖν,
ἐὰν μή σοι κατὰ νοῦν ἣ λεγόμενος. βούλει συγκεφαλαιω-

A / A ,
2Q. Φίληβος μὲν τοίνυν ἀγαθὸν εἶναί φησι τὸ χαίρειν
aa ’ A 4 ε ᾿ 4 , ὦ val ,
Tact ζώοις καὶ τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ τέρψιν, καὶ ὅσα τοῦ γένους
3 A , , ‘ \ Ε] ς ω ς , , . 4
ἐστὶ τούτου σύμφωνα: TO δὲ Tap’ ἡμῶν ἀμφισβήτημ᾽ ἐστὶ

4 “ > A A “- 4 A a 4 A ~ A
μὴ ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ TO φρονεῖν καὶ τὸ νοεῖν Kai TO μεμνῆσθαι Kat
a A ,
τὰ τούτων αὖ ξυγγενῆ, δόξαν τ᾽ ὀρθὴν καὶ ἀληθεῖς λογισμοὺς,
Ε΄ . oe A ? , 4 , ’ , Φ
τῆς γ᾽ ἡδονῆς ἀμείνω καὶ λῴω γίγνεσθαι ξύμπασιν, ὅσαπερ
3 “ ‘ an a A A 9 ,
αὐτῶν δυνατὰ μεταλαβεῖν: δυνατοῖς δὲ μετασχεῖν ὠφελιμώ-

one about the chief good, but merely
this ; that pleasure, and that which is akin
to it, has a right to the name of good
in its proper signification, which So-
crates denies, and claims the name for
mind, science, and all things belonging
to that class.

ὠφελιμώτατον] We must not take
this word as the predicate of μετα-
σχεῖν, which would be doing violence
to the construction and would require
an unwarrantable ellipsis ; the reason
of its being in the singular is because
of the correspondence in it which stands
to ἀγαθόν. For the main sentence had
it been left free from the after-thoughts
which interrupt its construction, would
be μὴ ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ νοῦν τοῖς δυνατοῖς
μετασχεῖν ὠφελιμώτατον ἁπάντων εἶναι
π. τ. ὁ. kK. ἐσομένοις. That τῆς 7 ἡδονῆς
k. τ. ἑ. are no part of the principal
sentence is plain from their being in-
capable of collocation with μὴ ταῦτα, for
it would be absurd to say that, not these
(viz. pleasure and the like), but mind and
knowledge, are preferable to pleasure.

1

aby. οὕτω πως προσ ὧ ee ἑκάτεροι: ὁ
Πάντων μὲν οὖν μάλιστα, ὧ Σώκρατες.

ZQ. Δέχει δὴ τοῦτον τὸν νῦν διδόμενον, ὦ, Ty i

GI.

λόγον;

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Ανάγκη δέχεσθαι" Φίληβος γὰρ ἡμῖν ὁ κα an

ἀπείρηκεν.

ZQ. Δεῖ δὴ περὶ αὐτῶν τρόπῳ παντὶ τἀληθές 7

περανθῆναι:;
TIPQ. Δεῖ γὰρ οὗν.
y Aguas 28

τόδε.

TPQ. To ποῖον;

Ἴθι δή, πρὸς τούτοις διομολογησώμεθα καὶ ἱ

ZQ. Ὡς νῦν ἡμῶν ἑκάτερος ἕξιν ψυχῆς καὶ διάθεσιν ἀπο- Ἵ
φαίνειν τιν᾽ eat xetpieet τὴν ὀυνόμέδην ἀνθρώποις πᾶσι τὸν
βίον εὐδαίμονα παρέχειν. dp’ οὐχ οὕτως ;

TIPQ. οὕτω μὲν οὗν. :

ΣΏ. Οὐκοῦν ὑμεῖς μὲν τὴν τοῦ χαίρειν, ἡμεῖς δ᾽ αὖ τὴν
τοῦ φρονεῖν ;

TIPQ.

2Q. Τί δ᾽ ἄν ἄλλη τις κρείττων τούτων φανῆ ; μῶν οὐκ,

“ “
ἔστι ταῦτα.-

ἂν μὲν ἡδονῇ μᾶλλον φαίνηται ξυγγενής, ἡττώμεθα μὲν ἀμφό-
τεροι τοῦ ταύτην ἔχοντος βεβαίως βίου, κρατεῖ δ᾽ ὁ τῆς ἡδονῆς

A A , Ξ
τὸν τῆς φρονήσεως:

TIPQ. Nai.

ZQ. “Av δέ γε ppovacer, νικᾷ μὲν φῥῥυησιν. τὴν ἡδονήν,
ἡ δ᾽ ἡττᾶται ; ταῦθ᾽ οὕτως ὁμολογούμενά φατε, ἢ ἢ πῶς:

ΠΡΩ. ἜἘμοὶ γοῦν δοκεῖ.

ΣΩ. Τί δὲ Φιλήβῳ; τί φής:

ταύτην ἔχοντος] The common reading
is ταῦτα, which is explained as referring
to τὸ κρείττω φανῆναι, and, indeed, there
is nothing else to refer it to; but though
éxew might be used in such a sense,
ἔχειν βεβαίως shows that a real posses-
sion is intended,—that is, the ἕξις καὶ
διάθεσις ψυχῆς spoken of above. Is it
conceivable that Plato would indicate
these by a neuter plural, or by any
plural at all, since they are not really

two things, but the same thing differ-

there are no means of restoring the

ently viewed? The confusion between
the apostrophus and the compendium
for ην is one of the commonest which
occur in manuscripts.

ἡ δ᾽ ἡττᾶται] The balance between
the two suppositions is disturbed, and 4
an idle repetition introduced by ‘these a
words. It is obvious that the sense re- —
quired is τῆς δ᾽ ἡττᾶται,---ἴ.6., φρόνησις, 1
is beaten in turn by the third ἕξις; but

passage with certainty.

ee ὍΔ

᾽ * ¢ | τ

é, Πράώταρχε, αὐτὸς γνώσει .

TIAA’ ὭΝΟΣ ΦΙΛΗ͂ΒΟΣ. , 3
Ἐμοὶ μὲν πάντως νικᾷν. ἡδονὴ sestes τε καὶ δόξει" σὺ

ΠΕ ΤΡΩΙ. Hapadovs, ὦ Φίληβε, ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον, οὐκ ἂν
ἔτι. “κύριος εἴης τῆς πρὸς Σωκράτη ὁμολογίας ἢ ἢ καὶ τούναν-
πίον.
Ὁ )Ὲ

βομαι νῦν αὐτὴν τὴν θεόν.

᾿ ᾿Αληθῆ λέγειν ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἀφοσιοῦμαι καὶ μαρτύ-

TIPQ. Kat ἡμεῖς σοι τούτων γ᾽ αὐτῶν συμμάρτυρες ἂν

i > 2 wile. \
εἶμεν, ὡς ταῦτ᾽ ἔλεγες a λέγεις.

᾿Αλλὰ δὴ τὰ μετὰ ταῦθ᾽

ἑξῆς, oO Σώκρατες, ὅμως καὶ μετὰ Φιλήβου ἑκόντος ἢ ὅπως av

ἐθέλη
3.
δίτην

πειρώμεθα περαίνειν.

ε 4 >
ἡδονὴν εἶναι.

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Ορθότατα.

ΣΩ. Πειρατέον, ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς δὲ τῆς θεοῦ, ἣν ὅδ᾽ "Adpo-

μὲν λέγεσθαί φησι; τὸ δ᾽ ἀληθέστατον αὐτῆς ὄνομ᾽

POR To δ᾽ ἐμὸν δέος, ὧ ΠΡρώταρχε, ἀεὶ πρὸς τὰ τῶν

θεῶν ὀνόματ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ πέρα τοῦ μεγί-

, Ν “ \ A
στου φόβου. καὶ νῦν τὴν μὲν

ϑοκεῖ τε καὶ δόξει] Unless we are
prepared to suppose with Stallbaum
that a certain climax is intended in
these words, ‘ videtur, et vero etiam
widebitur,’ we must believe re to be in-
dispensable, though ‘all the MSS.’
(that is, two independent sources, and
the copies made from them) omit it.

Literally, yourself
shall determine; you shall do as you
please. Gorgias, 5050. Zw. Kiev’ τί
οὖν ποιήσομεν ; μεταξὺ τὸν λόγον κατα-
λύομεν; Κα. Αὐτὸς γνώσει.

ἀφοσιοῦμαι)} I set myself free from
the pollution ; I disclaim all share in the
guilt, This was done by a variety of
trifling formal acts, such as pretending
to spit, &c., or by the use of certain
words. Hence, in the later Greek
writers, to do anything for form’s sake
and without serious purpose, is δρᾶν τι
ὁσίας χάριν or ὅσον ἀφοσιώσασθαι. In
the Attic authors I know of no instance
where the words are thus used without
some accompanying notion, of the dis-

αὐτὸς γνώσει]

_ charge from a religious obligation or

rd semphance with a religious ceremony.

ἢ ὅπως ἂν ἐθέλῃ] A polite way of im-
_ plying ἢ βίᾳ Φιλήβου.
an’ αὐτῆς δέ] Some MSS. have δή.

᾿Αφροδίτην, ὅπη ᾿κείνη φίλον;

It is impossible to decide between them
while the rest of the sentence remains
faulty. Every one will perceive that
ἀρξαμένοις, or ἀρκτέον, or some word to
that effect, must have dropped out.
See Stallbaum’s feeble defence of the
ellipsis.

τὸ δ᾽ ἐμὸν δέος] Socrates partook
largely of the general feeling of his
time, a feeling which lasted as long as
paganism itself, that it was profane to
tamper with the traditional names of
the objects of their worship; but in his
case at least it was not a superstitious,
but a very reasonable fear of meddling
with that of which he knew nothing
(Cratyl. 400 E), and on which all specu-
lation must be but a barren display of
ingenuity. It was not till the decline
of paganism that the notion became
common of trying to make the old
polytheism useful and rational by
allegorizing on its various parts.

ἐκείνῃ} This pronoun is here used in
preference to ταύτῃ, because the person
is in her own nature remote and in-
visible. In the next. sentence, ἀπ᾽
ἐκείνης is put for ἀπὸ ταύτης, on account
of ὅπερ εἶπον, which makes ἡδονὴ appear
not as the present subject, but as that
of a former proposition.

1—9

“ἢ ᾿ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ ΦΙΛΗΒΙ

ταύτη υἱρόναγορεῦψι τὴν δ᾽ ἡδονὴν οἶδ᾽ ὡς ἔστι ποικίλον: |
ὅπερ εἶπον, ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνης ἡμᾶς ἀρχομένους inn hs δεῖ καὶ
σκοπεῖν ἥντινα φύσιν ἔχει. [ ἔστι γάρ, ἀκούειν μὲν obras, 5
ἁπλῶς ἕν τι, μορφὰς δὲ δήπου παντοίας etn καί τινα
τρόπον ἀνομοίους ἀλλήλαις. ἰδὲ γάρ, ἤδεσθαι μέν φαμεν τὸν
ἀκολασταίνοντ᾽ ἄνθρωπον, ἥδεσθαι δὲ καὶ τὸν σωφρονοῦντ᾽
~~ a a A 4 ° , . A
αὐτῷ τῷ swdpovery’ ἥδεσθαι δὲ] καὶ τὸν ἀνοηταίνοντα καὶ
“ 3 A cam
ἀνοήτων δοξῶν καὶ ἐλπίδων μεστόν, ἥδεσθαι δ᾽ αὖ τὸν φρο-
“ ΓΟ “ aA ~ A « ,
voor’ αὐτῷ τῷ φρονεῖν: καὶ τούτων τῶν ἡδονῶν ἑκατέρας
Ὡς " , Ca 3
πῶς ἄν τις ὁμοίας ἀλλήλαις εἶναι λέγων οὐκ ἀνόητος φαίνοιτ
ἐνδίκως ;
“a , = ®
ΠΡΩ. Elicit μὲν γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ἐναντίων, ὦ Σώκρατες, αὗται
, 3 A ° , 9 Φ , 9 , ~ A
πραγμάτων, οὐ μὴν αὐταί γ᾽ ἀλλήλαις ἐναντίαι. πῶς γὰρ
»Ἄ 3 - A e “
ἡδονή γ᾽ ἡδονῆ μὴ οὐχ ὁμοιότατον ἂν εἴη, τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ,
’
πάντων χρημάτων;
A = , 3
ΣΏ. Kai γὰρ χρῶμα, ὦ δαιμόνιε, χρώματι: κατὰ Ὑ
eA “~ 59 “δ ’ \ ~ 3 > “ , 4
αὐτὸ τοῦτ᾽ οὐδὲν διοίσει, TO χρῶμ᾽ εἶναι πᾶν, TO γε μὴν
, » ~ , , ς A “~ ὃ ,
μέλαν τῷ λευκῷ πάντες γιγνώσκομεν ὡς πρὸς τῷ διαῴφορον
δὴ καὶ σχῆμα σχή-
Ν 5. Ὁ , , > lal 4 ‘ δὲ , -
ματι κατὰ ταὐτόν" γένει μέν ἐστι πᾶν ἕν, τὰ VE μέρη τοῖς

> δον , “ἃ ’
εἶναι καὶ €VAVTLWTATOYV OV τυγχανει"

τς ν᾿ δὰ , ᾽
μέρεσιν αὐτοῦ τὰ μὲν ἐναντιώτατ᾽ ἀλλήλοις, τὰ δὲ διαφορότητ
»Ἅ᾽ 7 , 4 , > > e Ε θ᾽
ἔχοντα μυρίαν που τυγχάνει. καὶ πόλλ᾽ ἕτερ᾽ οὕτως ἔχον
~ ΄-“» ’
εὑρήσομεν, ὥστε τούτῳ γε τῷ λόγῳ μὴ πίστευε, τῷ πάντα
S , 9 ΄“- “- δὲ ΤᾺΣ ὃ A
τἀναντιώταθ ποιοῦντι. φοβοῦμαι de μή τινας ἡδονας
ἡδοναῖς εὑρήσομεν ἐναντίας.
ral ~ A
TIPQ. Ἴσως: ἀλλὰ τί τοῦθ᾽ ἡμῶν βλάψει τὸν λόγον;
22. Ὅ
. τι προσαγορεύεις

ὁ ἢ, Φ᾽ + Ψ ROT? ,
QauT ἀνομοι ὄνθ ετερῷ; φήσο-

μυρίαν] This is to be understood not
of the number of differences, but of the
extent of some particular differences.
Comp. Apolog. 23,0. ἐν πενίᾳ μυρίᾳ εἰμί.
φοβοῦμαι μή] The use of these words
with an indicative expresses a belief that
the thing apprehended will prove true.
Stallbaum compares, among other pas-
sages, Rep. 451, A. Phead. 844, φοβεῖσθε
μὴ διακεῖμαι, and Arist. Nub. 480, δέ-
δοικα σ᾽ ὦ πρεσβῦτα μὴ πληγῶν δέει.
ὅτι προσαγορεύεις] Because, my side
will say, you call all these, which are
unlike each other, by a second name.
This would be assuming a second ground

of agreement between them; for that
they agree in being pleasures is proved
by their common name of pleasure; but
it does not follow that they agree in
anything else, as, for instance, in being
good. Stallbaum has rightly defended
this passage from the conjectures of his
predecessors. But in the next sentence
he has improperly retained πάντα, which
is wanting in the best MSS., and joined
αὐτὰ with ὁμολογῶν, in which case it
would have stood after it. I have sup-
plied ἂν by conjecture as necessary for
the sense; it was probably absorbed by
the following word.

| πάσας ἡδονὰς by the same name.

oe ale

τ TIAATONOE ΦΙΛΗΒΟΣ. Ἵ

ν, ὀνόματι. λέγεις γὰρ ἀγαθὰ πάντ᾽ εἶναι τὰ ἡδέα. τὸ μὲν

οὖν μὴ οὐχ ἡδέα εἶναι τὰ ἡδέα λόγος οὐδεὶς ἀμφισβητεῖ:
κακὰ δ᾽ ὄντ᾽ αὐτῶν τὰ πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθὰ δέ, ὡς ἡμεῖς φαμέν,
τ ak A " 4. 0.6 Meet ς A a >? .
ὅμως σὺ προσαγορεύεις ἀγάθ᾽ αὐτά, ὁμολογῶν av ἀνόμοι

Ὶ "ἢ ,
εἶναι TO λόγῳ εἴ Tis σε προσαναγκάζοι. Ti οὖν δὴ ταὐτὸν ἐν

cal a e , yas a a Ψὶ δὰ , e A ° Ἁ
ταῖς κακαῖς ὁμοίως καὶ ἐν ἀγαθαῖς ἐνὸν πάσας ἡδονὰς ἀγαθὸν

εἶναι προσαγορεύεις ;

TIPQ. Πῶς λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες; οἴει γάρ τινα συγ-

χωρήσεσθαι, θέμενον ἡδονὴν εἶναι τἀγαθόν, εἶτ᾽ ἀνέξεσθαί σου

λέγοντος τὰς μὲν εἶναί τινας ἀγαθὰς ἡδονάς, τὰς δέ τινας

ἑτέρας αὐτῶν κακάς:
ΣΩ.

, Ω ,
καὶ τινὰς εναντίιας.

᾿Αλλ᾽ οὖν ἀνομοίους γε φήσεις αὐτὰς ἀλλήλαις εἶναι

ΠΡΩ, οὔτι καθ᾽ ὅσον γ᾽ ἡδοναί.
ZQ. Πάλιν εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν φερόμεθα λόγον, ὦ Πρώταρχε.

οὐδ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἡδονὴν ἡδονῆς διάφορον, ἀλλὰ πάσας ὁμοίας εἶναι

4 A , e ΄“- Α A 4 , 9 “λ
φήσομεν, καὶ Ta παραδείγματα ἡμας TA νυν δὴ λεχθεντ οὐδὲν

, , A 4 “ 4 ε ’ ,
TLTPWOKELV, πεισόμεθα δὲ καὶ ερουμεν ἅπερ οἱ TAYTWV φαυλό-

4 A , “ ,
TAaTOL TE καὶ περὶ λόγους ἅμα νεοι.
IPQ. Ta ποῖα δὴ λέγεις 5

ΤΣ) Ὅ A , Φ»., 8 4, 43 , 24 “A
° TL TE μιμουμενος εγὼ και AMUVOMEVOS εαν τολμῶ

, ¢ oe , , 9 mn "ἢ , ’
λέγειν ως TO GAVOKLOLOTATOV ETTL τῷ αἀνομοιοτατήτῳ TWAVTWV

e , Μ“ 9 A A , 4 ’ , ,
OMOLOTATOY, ἕξω ταῦτα σοὶ λέγειν, καὶ φανούμεθα γε νεώτεροι

“ δέ \ e , ες a
TOV ὁέοντος. καὶ ὁ λόγος ἡμῖν

τῷ λόγῳ] These words are in con-
struction both with ὁμολογῶν and with
προσαναγκάζοι. I have therefore re-
moved the comma instead of shifting it
with Stallb. from λόγῳ back to εἶναι.

τί οὖν δὴ ταὐτόν] The obscurity of:
this construction is owing to a threefold
accusative after προσαγορεύεις, the εἶναι
being, as usual, redundant. By what
self-same thing residing in good and bad
pleasures alike do you call all pleaswres
good? He would call the ταὐτὸν ἐνὸν
by the name of ἀγαθόν, and again,
This
appears to be a far simpler solution than
taking τί ταὐτὸν ἐνὸν as nominatives,
and supposing an anacoluthia,

τιτρώσκειν] The MSS. and Edd. have
τιτρώσκει, but if the clause had been

9 4 "Ὁ , iO
EK TEC WV οἰχήσεται. παλιν ουν

independent of that preceding, Plato
would have written οὐδὲ τὰ παραδ. ἡμᾶς
τρώσει. The sense, however, is not
that the former examples do not touch
them, but that they will say they do
not.

πεισόμεθα] The common reading is
πειρασόμεθα, but some of the better
MSS. have πειρώμεθα, and the best of
all, the Bodleian or Codex Clarkianus,
πειρόμεθα. The common reading is
probably the conjecture of a copyist,
who felt that a future was wanted. It
will not be expected that I should
adduce any proof in support of so
obvious a correction as that introduced
into the text.

νεώτεροι τοῦ δέοντος] Luthyd. 295 Ο.
ἀρχαιότερος εἶ τοῦ δέοντος.

αὐτὸν ἀνακρονώμεθα, καὶ τάχ᾽ "ier ey τὰν inlaid
πως ἀλλήλοις τὴς aaa Yay Fae | OG ya. ὧδ
ΠΡΩ. - Λέγε πῶς: , er . eae

4. DQ. Ἐμὲ θὲς ὑπὸ cov eth ἐρωτώμενον, ὦ ρον
ταρχε. ay iw 4

IIPQ. To ποῖον δή; ᾿ ὍΝ

=Q. Ppovncis τε Kal sd bag καὶ νοῦς καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὁπόσα
δὴ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ἐγὼ wh oaths εἶπον ἄγαθξνς διεμ πα ὅ τί
ποτ᾽ ἐστι τἀγαθόν, ἃ τ οὐ ταὐτὸν πείσονται τοῦθ᾽ ὅπερ ὁ σὸς
λόγος:

ΠΡΩ. Πῶς;

LQ. Πολλαί θ᾽ αἱ ξυνάπασαι ἐπιστῆμαι δόξουσιν εἶναι
ἐναντίαι πὴ

4 9. ἢ ’ 2A 5) , ‘ 4
καὶ GVOMOLOL τινες αὐτῶν ἀλλήλαις. δὲ καὶ

~ ᾿ -“ °
γίγνονταί τινες, ap’ ἄξιος ἂν εἴην τοῦ διαλέγεσθαι νυν. εἰ

φοβηθεὶς τοῦτ᾽

9 , ᾿ 3 ?
ἐπιστήμη γίγνεσθαι, κἀπειθ

ee , δι et t > ‘ ,
αὐτὸ μηδεμίαν ανομοῖον φαίην ἐπιστήμην

« a oO ε , e ᾿
ἡμῖν οὗτος ὁ λόγος ὡσπερ

a & Ns r Be es 3 δι ἄς,
μῦθος ἀπολόμενος οἴχοιτο, αὐτοὶ δὲ σωζοίμεθ επι τινος ἀλογίας:

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αλλ᾽

“- , , 4
σωθῆναι. TO γε μήν μοι ἰσον

3 , A A «ε 4A A
ἀρέσκει" πολλαὶ μεν ἡδοναὶ καὶ

δ᾽ ἐπιστῆμαι καὶ διάφοροι.

οὐ μὴν δεῖ

a , A ~
τοῦτο γενέσθαι, πλὴν τοῦ
A n a” « 4
τοῦ σοῦ τε Kal ἐμοῦ λόγου

4
ἀνόμοιοι γιγνέσθων, πολλαὶ

ZQ. Τὴν τοίνυν διαφορότητα; ῶ ΠΡρώταρχε, τοῦ ἀγα-

ἀνακρονώμεθα] This figurative ex-
pression, which is properly used of
backing a ship, has induced some to
believe that ἐκπεσὼν οἰχήσεται are part
of the same metaphor. But in all the
instances given, ἐκπίπτειν is used of the
casting away of a voyager, not of the
stranding of a vessel. Its use here is
rather singular, but it probably means
nothing more than having failed.

τὰς ὁμοίας] We must supply λαβάς.
The Scholiast explains the phrase as a
metaphor from wrestling. Socrates,
therefore, proposes that they should re-
sume their former position as dispu-
tants, in order that he may show Pro-
tarchus the unfairness of the feint
through which he sought to elude
Socrates’ question, by professing that
he should consider himself bound to
afford Protarchus the same handle, that
is to distinguish the kinds of ἐπίστημᾶι,
when called upon to do so.

μῦθος ἀπολόμενος] It is not clear
whether the original proverb was ὁ μῦθος
ἐσώθη or 6 μῦθος ἀπώλετο. Photius’ testi-
mony is in favour of the former: μ. ἐσώθη

. ᾿Ἐπίῤῥημά ἐστι λεγόμενον ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτῳ
τοῖς λεγομένοις μύθοις τοῖς παιδίοις. The
Scholiast on this place, with less proba-
bility, explains ὁ μ. ἀπώλετο, as used
by those who find they are speaking to
inattentive hearers; and he quotes the
comic poets, Crates and Cratinus, as
employing it, but without adducing the
passages. Τ᾽ suspect from the otherwise
unnecessary redundancy i in Rep. 621 B.
μῦθος ἐσώθη καὶ οὐκ ἀπώλετο, that the
latter is the original form, and that
the former is Plato’s own coining. The
allusion in this passage is to men
suffering shipwreck and escaping on a
raft. (Compare Phedo 85D.) And so
the argument would, like a tale, come to
nothing, and we should make owr esetipe
wpon an wnreason.

?

;

TO ππ τος sari σς ἄν πη εὐ μρβέοι ᾿μηνύσωσι,
ἐρον ἡδονὴν τἀγαθὸν δεῖ λέγειν ἢ φρόνησιν ἤ τι τρίτον
ἄλλο εἶναι. νῦν γὰρ οὐ δήπου πρός γ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο φιλονει-
κοῦμεν, ὅπως ἁγὼ τίθεμαι, ταῦτ᾽ ἔσται τὰ νικῶντα, ἣ
ταῦθ᾽ ἃ σύ, τῷ δ᾽ ἀληθεστάτῳ δεῖ που συμμαχεῖν ἡμᾶς
ἄμφω.

Ε. TIPQ. Ae yap οὗν.

5. 2Q. Τοῦτον τοίνυν τὸν λόγον ἔτι μᾶλλον δι᾽ ὁμολο-

᾿ γίας βεβαιωσώμεθα.
TPQ. Τὸν ποῖον δή:

ZQ. Τὸν πᾶσι παρέχοντ᾽ ἀνθρώποις πράγματα ἑκοῦσί

[ CK > a ewe
‘TE και ακοῦσιν EVLOLS και EVLOTE.

ΠΡΩ. Λέγε σα βεσσερβν

2Q.. Tov νῦν δὴ μρουδεσώτα λέγω, φύσει τὰν πεφυ-

κότα θαυμαστόν. ἕν γὰρ δὴ τὰ πόλλ᾽ εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἕν πολλὰ

θαυμαστὸν λεχθέν, καὶ ῥᾷδιον ἀμφισβητῆσαι τῷ τούτων

4 ε A /
ὁποτερονοῦν τιθεμένῳ.

ΠΡΩώΩ. 7Ap’ οὖν λέγεις, ὅταν τις ἐμὲ φῆ IIpérapyov,

“ , , A a 4 A 8 ne et.
eva γεγονότα φύσει, πολλοὺς εἶναι παλιν τοὺς ἐμὲ καὶ evay-

τίους ἀλλήλοις, μέγαν καὶ σμικρὸν τιθέμενος καὶ βαρὺν καὶ

A \ ~~ toe
κοῦφον τὸν αὐτόν, καὶ ἄλλα μυρία:

2Q2. Σὺ μέν, ὦ ΠΡρώταρχε; εἴρηκας τὰ δεδημευμένα τῶν

θ “A A \@ A , , O° e x
αυμαστῶν περὶ TO ἕν καὶ TOAAG, συγκεχωρημένα ὁ᾽ ὡς ἔπος

94 A ε A , An) A ὃ “ ἊΝ , Φ
εἰπεῖν ὑπο πάντων yon, μὴ θεῖν τῶν τοιούτων ἅπτεσθαι,

τολμῶμεν] This word appears to be
the main difficulty of a sentence which
has perplexed so many critics and
editors; but for it I should have
adopted Winckelmann’s conjecture, and
inserted οἱ λόγοι after ἐλεγχόμενοι, but
nothing can be determined with cer-
tainty till we know what is lurking
under τολμῶμεν. I have sometimes
thought it not improbable that Plato
wrote, κατατιθέντες δ᾽ εἰς μέσον τῶ
λόγω, ὁρῶμεν κιτιλ. This. would be
written in MSS. τλορῶμεν on the line
and the compendia above it.

ῥάδιον ἀμφ.} Affording a ready ob-
ἣν» against any one who advances

ἄρ᾽ οὖν λέγεις κι τ. λ,1 Unless καὶ

joins ἐναντίους with πολλούς, it is of no
use in the sentence; I have therefore
removed the comma from πάλιν. The
sense is as clear and well-expressed as
could be desired. Do you mean, when
aman says of me Protarchus, who am
one by nature, that I am again many
and opposite mes, bringing forward the
same person as great and small, heavy
and light, and so forth ?
συγκεχωρημένα] The twofold con-
struction of this word is owing to its
double signification. ‘All men give
wp these hackneyed marvels about the
one and the many, and admit that we
must not meddle with such, conceiving
them to be childish and common-place,

and very great hindrances to all inquiry.’

ae 2 Oe ae x 2 =
a Ἐν. =< κ᾿ δ

Β΄ TIAAT!

παιδαριώδη καὶ ῥάδια καὶ <tipe te)
λεμβανόντων γίγνεσθαι" κέ ἐπεὶ μηδὲ τὰ roeeee ὅταν τις.
στου τὰ "μέλη τε καὶ ἄλλα μέρη διελὼν τῷ λόγῳ, πάντα τ
τα τὸ ἕν ἐκεῖνο εἶναι διομολογησάμενος, ἐλέγχῳ καταγελῶν,
ὅτι τέρατα δὲν ἀηκονσνα φάναι; τό τε ἕν ὡς πόλλ᾽ ἐστι καὶ ᾿

Σ 4.

ἄπειρα, καὶ τὰ πολλὰ ὡς ἕν μόνον. γον

ΠΡΩ. Σὺ δὲ δὴ ποῖα, ὦ Σώκρατες», ἕτέρα λέγεις, ἃ
μήπω συγκεχωρημένα δεδήμευται περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον
λόγον; | :

2Q. ‘Oxoray, ὦ παῖ, τὸ ἕν μὴ τῶν peyeonaem Te καὶ
ἀπολλυμένων τις iid καθάπερ ὁ ἀρτίως ἡμεῖς εἴπομεν. ἐνταυ-
θοῖ μὲν γὰρ καὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἕν, ὅπερ εἴπομεν νῦν δή, συγ-
κεχώρηται τὸ μὴ δεῖν ἐλέγχειν: ὅταν δέ τις ἕν᾽ ἄνθρωπον ἐπι-
xetpn τίθεσθαι καὶ βοῦν ἕνα καὶ τὸ καλὸν ἕν καὶ TO ἀγαθὸν
ἕν, περὶ τούτων τῶν ἑνάδων καὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἡ πολλὴ σπουδή,
μετὰ δὲ διαιρέσεως ἀμφισβήτησις γίγνεται.

HPQ. Πῶς:

Σ(). Πρῶτον μὲν εἴ τινας δεῖ τοιαύτας εἶναι μονάδας j
ὑπολαμβάνειν ἀληθῶς οὔσας" εἶτα πῶς αὖ ταύτας, μίαν ἑκά-
στην οὖσαν ἀεὶ THY αὐτὴν καὶ μήτε γένεσιν μήτ᾽ ὄλεθρον προσ-

ὃ , “ 3 , t , A δὲ κ᾿
ἐχομένην. OMWS εἰναι βεβαιότατα μιὰν ταυτῆὴν" META CE TOUT

μέλη] Legg. 795 Β. μελῶν καὶ
μερῶν. The MSS. and edd. all ex-
hibit μέλη τε καὶ dua μέρη, which, if it
means anything, means that the μέλη
and μέρη are the same, whereas it is
plain that μέρη is added because the
body cannot be properly divided into
μέλη only. Ifit were μέλη θ᾽ ἅμα καὶ
μέρη, there would be no objection to
the word but its inutility. I have
written ἄλλα, which is continually con-
founded with ἅμα by the copyists. In
cap. 7, dua ἐννοεῖν, the Bodleian and
Vatican have made the opposite mistake.
διομολογησάμενος] Stallbaum rightly
explains this word to mean, having got
another to admit. The accusative after
ἐλέγχῃ is to be understood from
ἑκάστου.
πολλὴ σπουδὴ μ. δὲ 8. ἀμφι-
tyois| The δὲ is wanting in the

MSS., having probably disappeared, -

from its resemblance to the beginning
of the next word. Others have pro-
posed to insert καὶ before μετά, while

some object to any change, and are con-
tent to believe that Plato could have
meant, the great earnestness about such
monads becomes with division contro-
versy,—t.e., turns to controversy as soon
as you propose to divide them. As if
anything so awkwardly expressed could
have come from Plato! I have con-
jectured δὲ in preference to xal, not only
as a slighter departure from the MSS.,
but because it better expresses the con-
nexion of the sentence. The reality of
ideas is the subject of earnest con-
sideration, the mode of their division in |
things sensible is the cause of great con-
troversy. Observe that ἡ πολλὴ be-
longs to ἀμφισβήτησις as well as to
bi ia

pws] ὁ.6., notwithstanding what is
Fee to be said in the following sen-
tence. For ὅμως is sometimes never-
theless, and sometimes the apodosis to
it, either following or preceding it.
Ast should not have given this as an
example of ὅμως after the participle,

ἵ

4

Ι Η
a
7
iz ᾿
͵
4
Ἢ

ἂμ

τς

πρῶτον διαπονήσασθαι:;

5 γυγνομένοις αὖ καὶ ἀπείροις εἴτε διοσπασμέριν καὶ
᾿ γεγονυῖαν. θετέον. εἴθ᾽ aig αὐτὴν αὑτῆς χωρίς, ὃ δὴ
τῶν ἀδυνατώτατον φαίνοιτ᾽ ἂν: ταὐτὸν καὶ ἕν ἅμ᾽ ἐν ἑνί
- καὶ πολλοῖς γέγνεσθαι: ταῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὰ περὶ τὰ τοιαῦθ᾽ ἕν
πολλά; ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐκεῖνα, ὦ "ΣΣ βώταρχες ὁ ἁπάσης ἀπορίας
τια μὴ καλῶς ὑμολαγηθεύνά καὶ εὐπορίας ἂν αὖ καλῶς.

ae “TIPO. Οὐκοῦν χρὴ τοῦθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἐν τῷ νῦν

᾿ΣΩ. Ὡς γοῦν ἐγὼ φαίην ἄν.

IPQ. Kai πάντας τοίνυν ἡμᾶς ὑπόλαβε συγχωρεῖν σοι

τούσδε τὰ τοιαῦτα: Φίληβον δ᾽

5 , 9 “ ΄
LOWS κράτιστον εν τῷ νυν

’ 4 » > ,
ἐπερωτῶντα μὴ κινεῖν εὖ κείμενον.

6. LQ. Elev. πόθεν οὖν τις ταύτης ἄρξηται πολλῆς οὔσης
κι ’ 4 ΟΣ: ’ , a >? ,
καὶ παντοίας περὶ τὰ ἀμφισβητούμενα μαχης; ap ἐνθένδε;

ΠΡΩ. 16θεν:

ZQ. Φαμέν που ταὐτὸν ἕν καὶ πολλὰ ὑπὸ λόγων γιγνό-

for then Socrates would be made to
say ‘that a monad is always fixedly a
monad, alihough it remains ever the
same, and admits neither of generation
nor of destruction,’ which is no contra-
diction, but a necessary consequence.
Nor is Stallbaum right in saying that
there are three questions proposed,
though πρῶτον, εἶτα, and μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο
would make it appear so. There are
but two. The first question is, whether
these monads have a real being; the
second is, how we can conceive that
they subsist unchangeably as monads,
and yet in the world of sense they must
be regarded as either distributed into as
many parts as there are individuals to
partake of them, or as remaining as
wholes in each individual, so that each
monad is at once one in each, and again
one in many. This last supposition is
πάντων ἀδυνατώτατον, because in this case
the one both agrees with itself and con-
tradicts itself. Parm. 131 A. οὐκοῦν
ἤτοι ὅλου τοῦ εἴδους ἢ μέρους ἕκαστον
τὸ μεταλάμβανον μεταλαμβάνει; πό-
τερον οὖν δοκεῖ σοι ὅλον τὸ εἶδος ἐν
ἑκάστῳ εἶναι τῶν πολλῶν, ἕν ὄν; ἢ TOs;
Ti γὰρ κωλύει ἐνεῖναι; “Ev ἄρα ὃν
καὶ ταὐτὸν ἐν πολλοῖς χωρὶς οὖσιν ὅλον
ἅμα ἐνέσται, καὶ οὕτως αὑτὸ αὑτοῦ
χωρὶς ἂν εἴη,

τὰ τοιαῦτα] One would rather have
expected ταὐτὰ ταῦτα, for this does not

refer to the ἕν x. 7., but to the proposed
ὁμολογία.

Φίληβον] The proverbial saying was
μὴ κινεῖν κακὸν εὖ κείμενον; for κακὸν
he puts Φίληβον. We had better let
well alone, and not ask Philebus for his
consent.

φαμέν που] The construction is not
φ. π. ἕν κ. π. ὑ. λ, ταὐτὸν γιγνόμενα
(Stallb.), for if Socrates had spoken here
of the reconcilement effected between
the one and the many by dialectics, it
is inconceivable that Protarchus should
answer, εἴ tis τρόπος ἐστι καὶ μηχανὴ
τὴν τοιαύτην ταραχὴν ἡμῖν ἔξω τοῦ
λόγου εὐμενῷς πῶς ἀπελθεῖν. Nor are
the young men described as delighting
in the discovery and exercise ‘of the
synthetical and analytical processes,’
but on the contrary, in the sophistical
employment of this contradiction which
is the inherent property (ἀθάνατον καὶ
ἀγήρων πάθος) in all objects of concep-
tion, by which they throw into per-
plexity both themselves and_ others.
We need not, therefore, take ταὐτὸν out
of its proper place i in the construction.
We say that the same one and many (i.e.,
the one and the many as predicable of
one and the same thing) springing from
words (not from the imperfection of
language, but from the form of our
conceptions, and consequently of the
words in which they are rendered)

Io

μενα περιτρέχειν πάντη καθ᾽ ἕκαστον τῶν peptone ἀεὶ καὶ
πάλαι καὶ νῦν. καὶ τοῦτ᾽ οὔτε μὴ παύσεται ποτ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἤρξατο,
νῦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι τὸ τοιοῦτον, ὡς ἐμοὶ φαίνεται, τῶν λόγων
ΕῚ “ 9 , 4% , , 9 e an 2 ὃ A > ee
αὐτῶν ἀθανατόν Tt Kat ἀγήρων πάθος ἐν ἡμῖν. ὁ δὲ πρῶτον
A , ~ Φ ,
αὐτοῦ γευσάμενος ἑκάστοτε τῶν νέων, ἡσθεὶς ὥς τινα σοφίας
ς A , ε " ὃ A 3 “ 4 Φ. -
εὑρηκὼς θησαυρόν, ὑφ᾽ ἡδονῆς ἐνθουσιᾷ τε καὶ πάντα κινεῖ
4 , , “
λόγον ἄσμενος, τοτὲ μὲν ἐπὶ θάτερα κυκλῶν καὶ συμφύρων εἰς
Ψ 4 3 , 9 ’ 4A ὃ , 9_f 9 ,
ἕν, τοτὲ δὲ πάλιν ἀνειλίττων Kal ιαμερίζων, εἰς ἀπορίαν
€ A A “A 4 , , ὃ , δ᾽ θ΄ 4
αὗὑτον Mev πρῶτον Kal μάλιστα καταβάλλων, εὐτερον ael
‘ ’ , 3 ’ x , x 9. Ὁ a
τὸν ἐχόμενον, ἄν TE νεώτερος ἄν τε πρεσβύτερος av O ἥλιξ ὧν
, ’ - + ‘ ᾿, A wr + SF ~
TUX aN, φειδόμενος οὔτε πατρος οὔτε μητρὸς οὔτ᾽ ἄλλου τῶν
3 , 9 ’ 3 ’ A 4 “ + , 9 ,
ἀκουόντων οὐδενός, ὀλίγου δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζώων, οὐ μονον
ω 5) , 9 A , +) ‘ “Δ ’ x *
τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἐπεὶ βαρβάρων ye οὐδενὸς av φείσαιτο, εἴπερ
4
μόνον ἑρμηνέα ποθεν ἔχοι.
“ 9 ~ ~ 4 »

IPQ. *Ap’, ὦ Σώκρατες, οὐχ ὁρᾷς ἡμῶν τὸ πλῆθος, ὅτι
νέοι πάντες ἐσμέν; καὶ οὐ φοβεῖ μή σοι μετὰ Φιλήβου ἕυνε-

θώ xv ἡμᾶς λοιδορῆς: ὅ δέ θά up ὃ
πιθώμεθα, εὰν ἡμᾶς λοιδορῆς; ὅμως δέ, μανθάνομεν γὰρ ὃ
λέγεις, εἴ τις τρόπος ἔστι καὶ μηχανὴ τὴν μὲν τοιαύτην ταρα-

A et oa ᾿ “ , 9 A 9 a) a 500 δέ
χὴν ἡμῖν ἔξω τοῦ λόγου εὐμενῶς πως ἀπελθεῖν, ὁδὸν δέ τινα
καλλίω ταύτης ἐπὶ τὸν λόγον ἀνευρεῖν, σύ τε προθυμοῦ τοῦτο
καὶ ἡμεῖς συνακολουθήσομεν εἰς δύναμιν: οὐ γὰρ σμικρὸς ὁ
παρὼν λόγος, ὦ Σώκρατες.
> > an e ”

22.5.) Ov yap οὗν, ὦ παῖδες, ὡς φησιν ὑμᾶς προσαγορεύων
Φίληβος. οὐ μὴν ἔστι καλλίων ὁδὸς οὐδ᾽ ἂν γένοιτο, ἧς ἐγώ
9 4 A ᾿] ς ’ ’ , > yf A +
ἐραστής MeV εἰμι Gel, πολλάκις δέ μ᾽ ἤδη διαφυγοῦσα ἐρῆμον
καὶ ἄπορον κατέστησεν.

ΠΡΩ. Tis αὕτη; λεγέσθω μόνον.

DQ.

, , A “ , 9 ’ 52 , ’
παγχάλεπον. πάντα Yap Ora τεχνῆς EXOMEV ἀνευρέθη πώποτε,

“Hy δηλῶσαι μὲν οὐ πάνυ χαλεπόν, χρῆσθαι δὲ

διὰ ταύτης φανερὰ γέγονε. σκόπει δὲ ἣν λέγω.

ΠΡΩ. Λέγε μόνον.

circulates universally and through every
subject of discourse, as it arises, whether
old or new. For although ἀεὶ must be
taken in the same sense as if it were

τῶν ἀεὶ λεγομένων, καὶ πάλαι Kal νῦν

also refer to the same, and not to
περιτρέχειν, else it would be tautology
toadd καὶ τοῦτ᾽ οὔτε μὴ παύσεται κ. τ. ἐ,

πάντα κινεῖ λόγον] This is an allu-
sion to the proverbial expression for
making a diligent search, πάντα λίθον
κινεῖν, which is continued in the phrases
ἐπὶ θάτερα κυκλῶν, and πάλιν ἀνει-
λίττων, turning them upside down and
rolling them back again.

ba
"
big
ἢ
ἑὰς
᾿

in Sam ee eae

ae

Sonata
- al

ay a Uh

ϊ
|
᾿

bi
ν

at ἐκ pe ὄντων τῶν ἀεὶ λεγομένων εἶναι, πέρας δὲ καὶ
ἀπειρίαν ἐ ἐν αὑτοῖς ᾿ξύραῥυτον ἄχϑνρθν. δεῖν οὖν ἡμᾶς τούτων
οὕτω διακεκοσμημένων ἀεὶ μίαν ἰδέαν περὶ παντὸς ἑκάστοτε

| θεμένους ζητεῖν: appre γὰρ ἐνοῦσαν. ἐὰν οὖν [pera ] λάβωμεν,
᾿ς μετὰ μίαν δύο. εἴ πως εἰσί. σκοπεῖν, εἰ δὲ μή. ὍΡΟΥ ἤ τιν᾽ ἄλλον

a λιμόν, καὶ τῶν ἕν ἐκείνων ἕκαστον πάλιν ὡσαύτως. μέχριπερ

«“ 4 a) Cog a) ey a A Α vis 2 5
αν ΤΟ KAT αρχᾶς εν My OTL EV Kat πολλὰ Kal απειρα εστι

- ᾿ Α Α , 4 A a 9
μόνον ton Tis, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁπόσα. THY δὲ τοῦ ἀπείρου ἰδέαν πρὸς

A “ A , A a A 4 ‘ Ε ΄“
τὸ πλῆθος μὴ προσφέρειν, πριν ἂν τις TOV ἀριθμὸν αὐτοῦ
, , A A a9 , A A e , ’
TAVTA κατίδη TOV μεταξὺ του ἀπείρου TE KAL TOV EVOS* ΤΟΤΕ

A a Va [2 “ , κι . «ἢ , ,
δὴ δεῖ TO ἐν ΕκΚαστον τῶν TAVTWY εἰς TO απείβρον μεθέντα χαι-

ς 1: ε A 5 6 row > ο Coa ὃ
βειν εαν. Ol μὲν ουν EOL, οπερ ELTOV, οὕτως ἡμιν πάρε οσαν

A , A , " A A ~
σκοπεῖν καὶ μανθάνειν καὶ διδάσκειν ἀλλήλους: οἱ δὲ νῦν τῶν

A , id Νὴ , A “
ἀνθρώπων σοφοὶ ἕν μέν, ὅπως ἂν τύχωσι, καὶ πολλὰ θᾶττον

4 , a A δέ 4 δὲ A a x
Kat βραχύτερον TOLOUGL TOU VEOVYTOS, META €. ΤΟ “ey ἀπειρὰ

Θεῶν μέν] It is not improbable that
Plato had some poetical passage in his
mind which he has adapted to his own
mythus. Otherwise I cannot account
for the abruptness of the beginning, the
use of μὲν without any apodosis, the
repetition in θεῶν---ἐκ θεῶν, the colloca-
tion of ποθέν, and such a combination
as ἐῤῥίφη with διὰ Προμηθέως. But if
ἐῤῥίφη stood in the original passage,
Plato might leave it, although his addi-
tion about Prometheus was not quite
in keeping with the word. Perhaps the
language of the mythus mentioned in
the Laws, xi. 672 B, may be similarly
accounted for.

ἔγγ. θεῶν οἰκοῦντες} Dwelling nearer
to the gods,—i.e., in more familiar inter-
course with them.

πέρας] We must not confound this
with the ὃν or genus as Stallbaum does.
It is the determinate number, the pro-

- duction of the one, which reconciles the

one andthe many. μεταλάβωμεν is the
reading of the MSS., which Stallbaum

_in vain endeavours to ‘defend. In place

of adopting Stephens’ conjecture, κατα-
λάβωμεν, I suspect that the copyist had
at first omitted the age and written the

following μετά, and then on discovering
his mistake, had neglected to place the
usual dots over the superfluous let-
ters. I have therefore put μετὰ in
brackets.

τῶν ἕν ἐκείνων] Ast, with Stall-
baum’s approval, reads τῶν ἐν ἐκείνῳ, ---
ὦ. 6.,) τῷ παντί. But we must not adopt
any correction of this passage which
removes ἕν, for this ὃν is evidently re-
ferred to immediately afterwards, where
it is distinguished from τὸ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς
ἕν. There is another objection to
Schiitz’s καὶ τὸ ἐκείνων ἕκαστον, ---
namely, that ἐκείνων would scarcely
have been used here in place of τούτων.
But what should prevent Plato from
using τὰ ἕν, τῶν ἕν, τοῖς ἕν, if he had
occasion for a plural? See below,
cap. 7. On the whole, I think it not
improbable that the right reading is καὶ
τῶν ἕν τῶν ἐν ἐκείνῳ ἕκαστον πάλιν
ὡσαύτως.

βραχύτερον] The MSS. have θᾶττον
καὶ βραδύτερον, a natural error, when
one considers how often these words
would occur together, both in writing
and speaking, and how easy it would be
for a scribe under any circumstances to

ἃ ὦ

διαλεκτικῶς tig Se καὶ τὸ
λους τοὺς λόγου. 7 ere |
7. IPQ. Ta μέν πως, ὦ Zadepares, δοκῶς σὺν ἃ
τὰ δὲ ἔτι is sola nd δέομαι ἃ λέγεις ἀκοῦσαι.
2A. Rapes μήν, ὦ Ἐρώτα βχοτα ἐστὶν ἐν τοῖς γράμ, μασιν.
ὃ λέγω, καὶ λάμβανε αὐτὸ ἐν τούτοις οἷσπερ καὶ πεπαίδε VTA.
IPQ. Iles; iil
ΣΏ. Φωνὴ μὲν ἡμῖν ἐστί που μία did τοῦ oneal

τος.

ἰοῦσα, καὶ ἀπέϊβες αὖ πλήθει, πάντων τε καὶ ἑκάστου. πον
ΙΡΩ,. Ti um; a

DQ. Kat οὐδὲν ἑτέρῳ γε TOUTWY ἐσμέν πω σοφοί, οὔθ᾽

{

° δ᾿ Νὰ ν᾽ ὧς τὰν ὕθ᾽ 8 Lo 5. Ὁ , ,

ὅτι τὸ ἄπειρον αὐτῆς ἴσμεν οὔθ᾽ ὅτι τὸ ἕν: GAN ὅτι πόσα TE
a ral 4 4 oe wn ~~

ἐστι καὶ ὁποῖα, TOUT ἔστι TO γραμματικὸν ἕκαστον ποιοῦν ἡμῶν. ο

TIPQ. ᾿Αληθέστατα.

A “ lal
a Fe Kai μὴν καὶ τὸ μουσικον ὃ τυγχάνει TOLOUYV, τοῦτ᾽

” eee
εστι ταῦτον.

ΠΡΩ. Iles;

A 23 U A , 9 A 9 ΕΣ 7 ᾿
=Q. Φωνὴ μεν ποὺ KAT EKELVHY τὴν TEXVHV ETTL μία εν AUTH. ©

IIPQ. ΠΠῶς δ᾽ ov;

2Q. Avo δὲ θῶμεν, βαρὺ καὶ ὀξύ, καὶ τρίτον ὁμότονον.

ἢ πῶς:
TPQ. οὔτως.
ΣΩ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὔπω σοφὸς dv εἴης τὴν μουσικὴν εἰδὼς ταῦτα

, A δὲ δὰ eo 4 » 9 a . ΄“ 0 A a 4
μονα. μῆ CE ELCOWS ὡς 7 ETOS ELTTELY εἰς TAVTA OVOEVOS ἄξιος εσειί.

read a Afora X. That any one should
attempt to justify βραδύτερον or to ex-
plain it is far more surprising. Com-
pare Politicus 279, ὅτι μάλιστα διὰ
βραχέων ταχὺ πάντ᾽ ἐπελθόντες.

καὶ οὐδέν] The least improbable
defence of this passage is that proposed
by Stallbaum, that οὐδὲν ἕτερον is equi-
valent to οὐδέτερόν τι, just as he shows
that οὐδὲν μή ποτε is equivalent to οὐ
μή ποτέτι. But τι here would be quite
superfluous, and indeed unmeaning.
On comparing the words below, οὔπω
σοφὸς ἂν εἴης, and taking into account
the reading of the Bodleian and other
MSS., I strongly suspect that we should
read, καὶ οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἑτέρῳ ye τ. εἷἶμέν πω
σοφοί, Οὐδέτερος, like οὐδείς, admits of

this division.
72. Aristotle, Nic. Eth. vii. 9. καὶ
οὐδὲ δι᾿ ἕτερον μεταβάλλει.

φωνὴ μέν που] After these words,
the inferior MSS. add καὶ τό, A great
part of the difficulty occasioned by this

passage has arisen from the editors ποῦ

seeing that éxewh τέχνη is γραμματική,
not μουσική. ‘As there was one sound
in speech, so there is one sound in
music.’ Agreeably to this sense, we
might read, Φωνὴ μέν που κατ᾽ ἐκείνην

τὴν τέχνην ἔστι pl’ ἐν ταύτῃ; or, if [ΓΠ6

words καὶ τὸ are entitled to attention
(and it is difficult to account for ae
as interpolated), we may ree
μ. π. κατὰ τὸ Kar’ ἐ, τ. 7.

Compare Thue. ii. 67; ii.

© fe ee
TAaUTQ. (ΟΥ̓

<a |
ΓΝ ee . λῶν ἝΩ . Η > : εν»
ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ ΦΙΛΗΒΟΣ. 13
Οὐ κ 3
ὑ γὰρ οὖν.
Ἀλλ᾽, ὦ φίλε, ἐπειδὰν λάβης τὰ διαστήματα ὁπόσα
ἐστὶ τὸν ὃν ἀριθμὸν τῆς Φωνῆς ὀξύτητός τε πέρι καὶ βαρύτητος,
᾿ καὶ ὁποῖα, καὶ τοὺς ὅρους τῶν διαστημάτων, καὶ τὰ ἐκ τούτων
ὅσα συστήματα γέγονεν, ἃ κατιδόντες οἱ πρόσθεν παρέδοσαν
ἡμῖν τοῖς ἑπομένοις ἐκείνοις καλεῖν αὐτὰ a ἔν τε ταῖς
πον αὖ τοῦ σώματος ἕτερα τοιαῦτ᾽ ἐνόντα πάθη ΝΣ
“τ ἃ δὴ δι᾽ ἀριθμῶν μετρηθέντα δεῖν αὖ φασὶ ῥυθμοὺς καὶ
4 ᾿ μέτρα ἐπονομάζειν, καὶ ἅμ᾽ ἐννοεῖν ὡς οὕτω δεῖ περὶ παντὸς
a 4 “ a ΦΨ ‘ “ , , e
evog καὶ πολλῶν σκοπεῖν: ὅταν yap ταῦτα Te λάβης οὕτω,
ΣᾺ 9 , , ΜΨΜ > Ρν A e A ,
TOT ἐγένου σοφὸς, ὅταν τ᾽ ἄλλο τῶν ἕν ὁτιοῦν ταύτη σκο-
, “ SS A A“ , \ °
‘movpevos ἕλης, οὕτως ἔμφρων περὶ τοῦτο γέγονας. τὸ ὃ
ἄπειρόν σ᾽ ἑκάστων καὶ ἐν ἑκάστοις πλῆθος ἄπειρον ἑκάστοτε

j a A a \ 5) 9 , ONS: Vora e “9 ᾽
ποιεῖ τοῦ φρονεῖν καὶ οὐκ ἐλλόγιμον οὐδ᾽ ἐνάριθμον, ἅτ᾽ οὐκ

a

β 9 3 \ Βα ὧν 3 A ’ Ἄν». ,

ats ἀριθμὸν οὐδέν᾽ ἐν οὐδενὶ πώποτ᾽ ἀπιδόντα.

iy 8. ΠΡΩ. ΚΚάλλιστα, ὦ Φίληβε, ἔμοιγε τὰ νῦν λεγόμενα

᾿ς εἰρηκέναι φαίνεται Σωκράτης.

ΦΙ.
e rx , eo “ of A , v fs

| 0 XoYos οὗτος νῦν εἴρηται καὶ τί ποτε βουλόμενος;

- Φίληβος.

TIPQ. Taw μὲν οὖν, καὶ ἀποκρίνου γε αὐτῷ.

Kapot γ᾽ αὐτὰ ταῦτα' ἀλλὰ τί δή ποτε πρὸς ἡμᾶς

᾿Ορθῶς μέντοι ταῦθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ὦ ΠΙρώταρχε, ἠρώτηκε

A A A

POF Apacw ταῦτα διελθὼν σμικρὸν ἔτι περὶ αὐτῶν τού-

Φ A a e A # , , A eo

των. ὦσπερ γὰρ ev ὁτιοῦν εἴ τίς ποτε λαβοι, τοῦτον, ὥς

φαμεν, οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἀπείρου φύσιν δεῖ βλέπειν εὐθὺς ἀλλ᾽ ἐπί τιν᾽

ἀριθμόν, οὕτω καὶ τοὐναντίον ὅταν τις τὸ ἄπειρον ἀναγκασθῆ
“ , A

πρῶτον λαμβάνειν, μὴ ἐπὶ TO ev εὐθὺς GAN ἐπ᾽ ἀριθμὸν αὖ

διαστήματα, intervals, or thenumber | ἀπείρους κόσμσυς εἶναι λέγειν ὄντως

of tones between two notes; ὅροι, the
distinction between these intervals;
ἁρμόνιαι, or συστήματα, the various
characters of music arising from the
predominance of various notes.

τῶν ἕν] So Bodl. Vat. and Ven. II.
Commonly ὄντων, a needless correction ;
compare above, τῶν ἕν, and observe the
opposition to ἄπειρον.

τὸ δ᾽ ἄπειρον] The reader will not
fail to admire the skilful play upon the
words ἄπειρον ἐλλόγιμον and ἐνάριθμον.
Stallbaum compares Tim. 55 ©, τὸ

ἀπείρου τινὸς δόγμα, ὧν ἔμπειρον χρεὼν
εἶναι ; and the oracle given to the
Megarians, “Ὑμεῖς δ᾽ ὦ Μεγαρεῖς οὔτε
τρίτοι οὔτε τέταρτοι Οὔτε δυωδέκατοι,
οὔτ᾽ ἐν λόγῳ οὔτ᾽ ἐν ἀριθμῷ.

κἀμοί γ᾽ αὐτὰ ταῦτα] Commonly καὶ
ἐμοὶ ταῦτά γε αὐτά. The first change
I have adopted from Bodl., which has
καί μοι, the second from Coislin., which
has ταὐτά γε ὄντα αὐτά. Stallbaum has
a strange way of explaining the mis-
placed aird—wper se seorsum spectata.

GAN’ ἔπ᾽ ἀριθμόν] I believe this pas-

τινὰ πλῖθον τὰ εν ἔχοντά
πάντων εἰς ἕν. πάλιν δὲ ἐν τοῖς, are
AaBwuer. ae vr UTE IND ee τ Yer Ὁ

ΠΡΩ. ἽΠως; Ὁ χε τ G00 Ὁ

ΣΩ. Ἐπειδὴ φωνῶν, ἄπειρον κατενόησεν εἴτε τις θε
καὶ θεῖος ἄνθρῶπος, ἰὲ ὡς λόγος ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ Θεύθ τινα
ψενέσθαι; λέγω ὡς πρῶτος τὰ φωνήεντα ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ κ -
νόησεν οὐχ᾽ ἕν ὄντα.ἀλλὰ πλείω, καὶ πάλιν ἕτερα φωνῆς: uiwdle Ὶ
φθόγγου. δὲ μετέχοντά i es ἀριθμὸν δέ τινα “καὶ τούτων
εἶναι: τρίτον δὲ εἶδος γραμμάτων Sherrie 6 τὰ νῦν depen
μενα ὄφιοια ἡμῖν" τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο διήρει τά τ᾽ ἀφο, καὶ
ἄφώνα μέχρι ἑνὸς ἑκάστου, καὶ τὰ φαβήεμεα καὶ τὰ μέσα κατὰ
τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, ἕως ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν λαβὼν ἑνί θ᾽ ἑκάστῳ
καὶ ξύμπασι στοιχεῖον ἐπωνόμασε. καθορῶν δ᾽ ὡς οὐδεὶς ἡμῶν
οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἕν αὐτὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ ἄνευ πάντων αὐτῶν μάθοι, τοῦτον
τὸν δεσμὸν αὖ λογισάμενος ὡς ὄνθ᾽ ἕνα καὶ πάντα ταῦθ᾽ ἕν πως
ποιοῦντα, μίαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς ὡς οὖσαν γραμματικὴν τέχνην ἐπε-
φθέγξατο προσειπών.

ΦΙ. Tair’ ἔτι σαφέστερον ἐκείνων αὐτά γε πρὸς ἄλληλα,
ὦ Τ]ρώταρχε, ἔμαθον. τὸ δ᾽ αὐτό μοι τοῦ λόγου νῦν τε καὶ
σμικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν ἐλλείπεται.

sage to be perfectly sound, and properly
constructed. δεῖ βλέπειν μὴ ἐπὶ τὸ ὃν
εὐθύς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀριθμὸν αὖ τινὰ ἔχοντα
ἕκαστόν τι πλῆθος, κατανοεῖν. Stall-
baum says, ‘ea vero multitudo formis
comprehensa haudquaquam dici potuit
ἕκαστον πλῆθος. But ἕκαστον πλῆθος
is each multitude of particulars which
is physically capable of being compre-
hended uuder a certain number of heads ;
and τι is added to ἕκαστον because the
process is of course to be confined to
one genus at a time, as for instance
that of the sounds of the human voice.
Some numbers will be found to.contain all
the πλῆθος in question, so that the enquirer
may discover them therein ; consequently
he adds κατανοεῖν, which, according to
a common Greek idiom, is in construc-
tion with ἔχοντα.

λέγω ὡς πρῶτος] I have followed the -

Bodleian in putting ὡς for 8s; but this
required λέγω in place of λέγων, and so
the sentence becomes coherent.

τά τ᾽ ἄφθογγα)] We should rather

fr

y

ae

have expected τὰ ἄφθογγά τε kal ἄφωνα,
but τε is sometimes moved from its place
(cf. Elmsl. ad Heracl. 622), and in
this place the hiatus is avoided by the
change. The μέσα, which he describes
above as partaking not of voice but yet
of sound, are the liquids which stand
midway between vowels and mute con-.
sonants.

καθορῶν δέ] Because we can have no
true conception of φωνὴ except as dis-
tinct from φθόγγος ; nor of this again
without also knowing both φωνὴ and
τὸ ἄφωνον, of which it is in Coleridge’s
expression the indifference. See the
admirable ‘noetic pentad’ in his Aids to
Reflection.

μίαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς ds οὖσαν is explained i
by Stallbaum as ὡς οὖσαν μίαν ; he has —
illustrated this position of ws by Soph.
242 0. παισὶν ws οὖσιν ἡμῖν, and other —
examples; but he should ee have —
quoted for this purpose Arist. Clouds, —
254, οἴμοι Σωκράτην (sic) Ὥσπερ 7
τὸν ᾿Αθάμανθ᾽ ὅπως μὴ θύσετε.

TONOZ GIAHBOS. 18

ou May, ὧ Ῥηῦβε, τὸ τί πρὸς ἔπος αὖ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστίν:
ol Nai, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ὃ πάλαι ζητοῦμεν ἐγώ τε καὶ ἸΠρώ-

ταρχος.
ΣΩ.

—
PI. Πᾶς:
9. ΣΩ. Sap’ οὐ περὶ φρονήσεως ἣν καὶ ἡδονῆς ἡμῖν ἐξ

q ἀρχῆς ὁ λόγος, Spore pin αὐτοῖν αἱρετέον:

Ἢ μὴν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ γ᾽ ἤδη γεγονότες ζητεῖτε, ὡς φής,

PI. Πῶς γὰρ οὔ;

2Q. ΚΚαὶ μὴν ἕν Ra ἑκάτερον αὐτοῖν εἶναί φαμεν.

ΦΙ. [law μέν οὗν.

ΣΩ. Τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ τοίνυν ἡμᾶς ὁ Ἐρθαθεὺ λόγος ἀπαιτεῖ,
πῶς ἔστιν ἕν καὶ πολλὰ αὐτῶν ἑκάτερον, καὶ πῶς μὴ ἄπειρα

9 ’ὔ; 9 , , 9 ᾿] A e , +S ’
εὐθύς, ἀλλὰ τινὰ ποτ΄. ἀριθμὸν ἑκάτερον ἔμπροσθεν κέκτηται

τοῦ ἄπειρα αὐτῶν ἕκαστα γεγονέναι;
ΠΡΩ. ΟοΟὐὐκ εἰς φαῦλόν γ᾽ ἐρώτημα: ὦ Φίληβε, οὐκ οἶδ᾽

ὅντινα τρόπον κύκλῳ πῶς περιαγαγὼν ἡμᾶς ἐμβέβληκε Σω-

ine

a n=

WH , ~ - Lal

| Κρατῆής. καὶ σκόπει δὴ πότερος ἡμῶν ἀποκρινεῖται τὸ νῦν ἐρω-
μ , ” a m ae ee A , A ἢ

᾿ς τστώμενον. ἴσως On γελοῖον TO εμε τοῦ λόγου ιάδοχον παντε-
Ἢ A ς , \ A A , A A 3 A 9 ,
᾿ λῶς ὑποστάντα διὰ TO μὴ δύνασθαι TO νῦν ἐρωτηθεν ἀποκρί-
Fi U “ ,

᾿ς γνάᾶσθαι σοὶ πάλιν τοῦτο προσταττειν" γελοιότερον δ᾽ οἶμαι

πολὺ τὸ μηδέτερον ἡμῶν δύνασθαι: σκόπει δὴ τί δράσομεν.

7 a ed

ᾷ x , ὃ a nm 19 lan a A Sea. / + 9 0
13 εἴδη γὰρ μοι ὁοκεῖι νυν ἐρωταν ἡἠθονῆς μας “ωὠκρατῆς; ELT ἐστιν
εἴτε μή, καὶ ὁπόσ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ ὁποῖα" τῆς T αὖ φρονήσεως
Α
πέρι κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὡσαύτως.
Ἶ DQ. ᾿Αληθέστατα λέγεις, ὦ παῖ Καλλίου: μὴ γὰρ δυνά-
| Y μὴ γὰρ
μενοι τοῦτο κατὰ παντὸς ἑνὸς καὶ ὁμοίου καὶ ταὐτοῦ δρᾶν καὶ
~ 9 ’ e e A , 9 , 3 4 9 Pe |
TOU ἐναντίου. ὡς O παρελθὼν λογος ἐμήνυσεν; οὐδεὶς εἰς οὐδὲν
᾽ Ν a ¢ “(ἡ 207 , 9
οὐδενὸς QV ἡμῶν οὐδέποτε γένοιτο ἄξιος.
ΠΡΩ. Σχεδὸν ἔοικεν οὕτως, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἔχειν. ἀλλὰ
\ ein , , a , ὃ , a
καλον μεν TO ξύμπαντα γιγνώσκειν τῷ σώφρονι; εὐτερος
a τί πρὸς ἔπος] Euthyd. 295 0. ἐὰν | εἶχον ἔλπιδας Πολλὰς ἐν ὑμῖν. The
| μηδὲν πρὸς ἔπος ἀποκρίνωμαι. Nothing Zurich editors have placed a mark of
τς to the purpose. interrogation after this sentence, which
| ἢ μὴν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ γ᾽] And yet you are | is certainly incorrect.
i _ close upon that which, as you say, you διάδ. παντελῶς ὑποστάντα] having
i have been some time looking for. For | wnreservedly taken your place as your
|

_ this force of ἢ μὴν... γε, compare Eur. | swecessor.
Medea. 1028. ἢ μὴν ποθ᾽ ἡ τάλαινά γ᾽ δεύτερος πλοῦς] A common pro-

ὦ Σώκρατες, ἀπέδωκας πᾶσι καὶ δαυτον ie ΣᾺ ͵
τῶν with paket κτημάτων ἄριστον.. Φιλήβου ya
| 3 a
ἡδονὴν καὶ τέρψιν Kat χαρὰν καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὁπόσα τοιαῦτ᾽
σὺ πρὸς αὔτ᾽ ἀντεῖπες ὡς οὐ ταῦτ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖν᾽ ἐστιν, ἃ
λάκις ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἀναμιμνήσκομεν ἑκόντες, ὀρθῶς εὐχάς:
ἐν μνήμῃ παρακείμενα ἑκάτερα ᾿βασανίζηται. φὴς δ᾽ ὡς ἔοικε,
σὺ τὸ ἀροδβηθηφΌμενον ὀρθῶς ἄ ace ἡδονῆς “ip ἀγαθὸν heed
νοῦν, ἐπεύψημαν, σύνεσιν, ἜΧΩΝ καὶ πάντ᾽ αὖ τὰ τούτων Evy-
γενῆ, ἃ κτᾶσθαι δεῖν, GAN οὐχὶ ἐκεῖνα. τούτων δὴ μετ᾽ appr
. , οι , δὲ te. aS \ ν AS a Xa
σβητήσεως ἑκατέρων λεχθέντων ἡμεῖς σοι μετὰ παιδιᾶς HIrELAn=
σαμεν ὡς οὐκ ἀφήσομεν οἴκαδέ σε, πρὶν adv τούτων τῶν λόγων
πέρας ἱκανὸν γένηταί τι διορισθέντων. σὺ δὴ συνεχώρησας
“ aS a A

καὶ ἔδωκας εἰς ταῦθ᾽ ἡμῖν σαυτόν. ἡμεῖς δὲ δὴ a bi i,
καθάπερ οἱ παῖδες, ὅ ὅτι τῶν Onno δοθέντων "ἀφαίρεσιν οὐκ
ἔστι. παῦσαι δὴ τὸν τρόπον ἡμῖν ἀπαντῶν τοῦτον ἐπὶ τὰ νῦν
λεγόμενα.

2Q. Τίνα λέγεις;

ΠΡΩ, Els ἀπορίαν ἐμβάλλων καὶ ἀνερωτῶν ὧν μὴ δυναί-

> ἢ ε A ς , 9 A , ὃ ὃ , A 4
μεθ᾽ ἀν ἱκανὴν ἀπόκρισιν ἐν τῷ παρόντι διδόναι σοι. μὴ γὰρ
οἰώμεθα τέλος ἡμῖν εἶναι τῶν νῦν τὴν πάντων ἡμῶν ἀπορίαν,
9 ᾿] be -~ Af ὙΦ a 9 “ 4 , e ,
ἀλλ᾽ εἰ δρᾶν τοῦθ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἀδυνατοῦμεν, σοὶ δραστέον: ὑπέσχου

’ , A ᾿ Pe ee, eee , Weel. A ay
yap. βουλεύου δὴ πρὸς ταῦτ᾽ αὐτός, πότερον ἡδονῆς εἴδη σοι
καὶ ἐπιστήμης διαιρετέον ἢ καὶ ἐατέον, εἴ πη καθ᾽ ἕτερόν τινα
τρόπον οἷός T εἶ καὶ βούλει δηλῶσαί πως ἄλλως τὰ νῦν ἀμ-
φισβητούμενα παρ᾽ ἡμῖν.

Σ(), Δεινὸν μὲν τοίνυν ἔτι προσδοκᾶν οὐδὲν δεῖ τὸν ἐμέ,
5) 4 “Δ᾽ ec > \ ‘ 5) , ς 4 , ,
ἐπειδὴ τοῦθ᾽ οὕτως εἶπες" τὸ γὰρ εἰ βούλει ῥηθὲν λύει πάντα

verbial expression for the next best thing.

ἐπέδωκας} You bestowed upon us all
this conversation and yourself, for the
purpose of discussing what is the best of
human possessions. Compare Laws, xii.
944. ὅπλα, ἃ Πηλεῖ φησὶν ὁ ποιητὴς

παρὰ θεῶν προῖκα ἐν τοῖς γάμοις ἐπιδο--

θῆναι Θετίδι. The difference between
ἐπιδιδόναι in such passages, and the
simple verb, seems to be that it denotes
a spontaneous gift.

τὸν ἐμέ] .6., me, the threatened
one,—poor me. Plat. Ep. 7. καὶ δὴ
καὶ τὸν ἐμὲ παρεμυθεῖτο, .----ἰ.6., Plato, who
had apprehended mischief from Diony-
sius. TZheet. 166. γέλωτα δὴ τὸν ἐμὲ
ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἀπέδειξε, ---, 6., Prota-
goras, who complains of hard usage.

τὸ yap € Agee ῥηθέν] It has oa
been observed that this is said gene-
rally, and ἑκάστων πέρι has been mis-
translated in consequence. The sense

‘<

KE Dies βεῶν ἡμῖ

ΠΡΟ Οὕτως
|
δείξει.
|

TPQ. Ta ποῖα;

ae
τέλεον εἶναι;

: ῬῸ ‘Tis δὴ καὶ τίνων;
EQ. Adyov ποτέ τινων πάλαι ἀκούσας ὄναρ ἢ καὶ
pny γορὼς νῦν. ἐννοῶ, περί θ᾽ ἡδονῆς καὶ Φρενήσεμςς ὡς οὐδέ-
αὐτοῖν ἐστὶ τἀγαθόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἄλλο τι τρίτον, ἕτερον μὲν.
toni δ᾽ ἀμφοῖν. καίτοι τοῦτο δὲ ἄν ἐναργῶς ἡμῖν͵

ZQ. Τὴν τἀγαθοῦ μοῖραν πότερον ἀνάγκη τέλεον ἡ μὴ

wv πέρι. a πρὸς δ' at otros “μνήμην τινὰ, ail

4 ῥανῇ κόρα ἀπήλλακται μὲν ἡδονὴ τοῦ νικᾶν: τὸ γὰρ ἀγαθὸν.
οὐκ ἂν ἔτι ταὐτὸν αὐτῆ γίγνοιτο. 7 πῶς:

DQ. Tor δέ γ; εἰς τὴν διαίρεσιν εἰδῶν ἡδονῆς οὐδὲν ἔτι
᾿προσδεησόμεθα κατ᾽ ἐμὴν δόξαν. προϊὸν δ᾽ ἔτι σαφέστερον

HPQ. ΚΚαλλιστ᾽ εἰπὼν οὕτω καὶ διαπέραινε..
ΣΩ. Σμίκρ᾽ ἄττα τοίνυν ἔμπροσθεν ἔτι διομολογησώμεθα.-

A

HPQ. Πάντων δή που τελεώτατον, ὦ Σώκρατες.

2Q. ΤΙ δέ; ἱκανὸν τἀγαθόν;

TPQ. [Πῶς γὰρ οὔ; καὶ πάντων γ᾽ εἰς τοῦτο διαφέρειν

~ ἂν
τῶν OVTOV.

is, When men say if you please, it does
— away with all fear in every case.
πρὸς δ᾽ αὖ τούτοις] The Bodleian
has αὖ τοῖς, which form is inadmissible
here. The origin of the error, which
has been corrected from Coisl., is
_ obvious.
καίτοι τοῦτό γ᾽ ἄν] The Bodleian
has καίτοι οὕτω Ls ἐάν, which is cor-
rected into καὶ τοιοῦτό ye dv. The ob-
_ jection to this reading is that the sense
of it would be, and if it should appear
wch, —whereas, Socrates must first be
6 whether it will appear at all. This
56 but be produced by inserting

t is far better expressed by

ΣΩ Td j , e > A 9 mals ,

- O0€ γέ μήν, WS οἶμαι, περὶ αὐτοῦ ἀναγκαιότατον
Ss , e ἴω A A a , 4A 9 ,
εἶναι λέγειν, ὡς πᾶν TO γιγνῶσκον αὐτὸ θηρεύει καὶ ἐφίεται

4 ’ e A 4 A e Ἁ , 4 “ oS
βουλόμενον ἑλεῖν Kat περὶ αὗὑτο κτήσασθαι, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων

QA ζω a
οὐδὲν φροντίζει πλὴν τῶν ἀποτελουμένων ἅμ᾽ ἀγαθοῖς.

τοῦτο. Besides, in καὶ---γε, the latter
particle is of no force, for καὶ---ε is
besides ; but καίτοι----γε is equivalent to,
and yet you must admit.

εἰς τὴν διαίρεσιν] The construction
is not τῶν εἰδῶν εἰς τὴν δ., but τῶν is to
be taken by itself. We shall not need
the things which pertain to the division
of kinds of pleasure.

προϊὸν δ᾽ ἐ. o. δείξει) The pro-
verbial expression is, αὐτὸ δείξει, the
event will make things clear. But both
δείξει and δηλώσει are used in the same
manner without αὐτός Ar. Frogs, 1261,
Plat. Rep. 497. Stallbaum’s note on
this passage is well worth consulting.

2

op ονήσεως Blov ‘Sires χωρίς.

ΠΡΩ. Πῶς εἶπες; χὰ ς- a,
ZQ. Mir’ ἐν τῷ τῆς iors ὦ enone οι re
τῆς φρονήσεως. ἡδονή. δεῖ γάρ, εἴπερ πότερον αὐτῶν
τἀγαθόν, piney μηδενὸς ἔτι pus gece δεόμενον δ᾽ dy ¢ {
πότερον, οὐκ ἔστι που τοῦτ᾽ ἔτι TO ὄντως ἡμῖν ἀγαθόν., ΒΝ

ΠΡΩ. Iles γὰρ ἄν; Pie

2ZQ. Οὐκοῦν ἐν σοὶ } πειρώμεθα βασανίζοντες ταῦ “as ae

IPQ. dv μὲν οὗν. ,

=Q. "A roxpivou δή.

ΠΡΩ. Λέγε. ἐς Ἷ

ΣΏΩ. Δέξαν᾽ & ἄν, Εν κοήλ σὺ ζῆν τὸν oe ἅπαντα 486. 4
flevos ἡδονὰς τὰς rede 4

TPO: .° Ti 3° οὗ:

Ar. °Ap’ οὖν ἔτι τινὸς ἄν σοι προσδεῖν ἡγοῖο, εἰ τοῦτ᾽
ἔχοις παντελώς;

ΠΡΩ. οὐὐδαμώς. q

za. Ὅρα δή, τοῦ φρονεῖν καὶ τοῦ νοεῖν καὶ λογίζεσθαι q
Ta δέοντα, καὶ ὅσα τούτων ἀδελφά, μῶν μὴ δέοι᾽ av τι; |

TIPQ. Kai τί; πάντα yap ἔχοιμ᾽ ἄν που τὸ χαίρειν
᾿
ἔχων. |

ZQ. Οὐκοῦν οὕτω ζῶν ἀεὶ μὲν διὰ βίου ταῖς μεγίσταις
ἡδοναῖς χαίροις av

ΡΝ δ᾽:

ZQ. Νοῦν δέ γε καὶ μνήμην καὶ ἐπιστήμην καὶ δόξαν μὴ
κεκτημένος ἀληθῆ, πρῶτον μὲν τοῦτ᾽ αὐτό, εἰ ἢ χαίρεις ἢ μὴ
χαίρεις, ἀνάγκη δή ποῦ σε ἀγνοεῖν, κενόν γ᾽ ὄντα πάσης
φρονήσεως.

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Ανάγκη.

ZQ. Καὶ μὴν ὡσαύτως μνήμην μὴ κεκτημένον ἀνάγκη

IIpaérapxe] ὦ seems to be omitted μῶν μὴ δέοι᾽ ἄν τι] The MSS. have 4
here on account of the pronoun being μηδὲ ὁρᾶν τι. Several scholars have all
placed after the name of the person | proposed to change ὁρᾶν into ὄναρ, but —
addressed, which is usual either when | they all appear ΓΑ te ve τι, which in th
the speaker first turns to him, or makes | case ee be contrary to Greek usa
an ‘especial appeal to him,

το

δ᾽ ὅτι ποτὲ ἔ ἔχαιρες “μεμνῆσθαι, τῆς τ᾿ ἐν τῷ παρα-
Adovic Ἐβοσδυντούσης μηδ᾽ aero μνήμην ὑπομένειν"
ὀξαν δ᾽ αὖ μὴ diane ἀληθῆ μὴ δοξάζειν χἀέρειν Χαί-
ον Ὁ ‘a ᾿ λογισμοῦ δὲ στερόμενον μηδ᾽ εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον ὡς
αἱρήσεις δυνατὸν εἶναι cans ae ζῆν δ᾽ οὐκ ἀνθρώπου βίον
ΜΗ τινὸς πλεύμονος ἢ τῶν ὅσα θαλάττια ‘mer’ ea ssi
ta χα ἐστι σωμάτων. ἔστι “ταῦτα, ἢ παρὰ ταῦτ᾽ ἔχομεν
F “ἄλλως πως διανοηθῆναι:

ΠΡΩ. Kai πῶς;

ZQ. *Ap’ οὖν αἱρετὸς ἡμῖν βίος ὁ τοιοῦτος:

TIPQ. Eis ἀφασίαν παντάπασί με, ὦ Σώκρατες, οὗτος
ὁ λόγος ἐμβέβληκε τὰ νῦν.

DQ. Μήπω τοίνυν μαλθακιζώμεθα, τὸν δὲ τοῦ νοῦ μετα-
λαβόντες αὖ βίον ἴδωμεν.

11. ΠΡΩ. [ΙΠοῖον δὴ λέγεις:

2Q. Ei τις δέξαιτ᾽ ἂν αὖ ζῆν ἡμῶν φρόνησιν μὲν καὶ
᾿ς γοῦν καὶ ἐπιστήμην καὶ μνήμην πᾶσαν πάντων κεκτημένος,
᾿ς ἡδονῆς δὲ μετέχων μήτε μέγα μήτε σμικρόν, μηδ᾽ ad λύπης,
ἀλλὰ τὸ παράπαν ἀπαθὴς πάντων τῶν τοιούτων.

ΠΡΩ. Οὐδέτερος ὁ βίος, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἔμοιγε τούτων
αἱρετός, οὐδ᾽ ἄλλῳ μή ποτε, ὡς ἐγῷμαι, φανῆ.

ΣΩ. Ti δ᾽ ὁ ξυναμφότερος, ὦ ΠΡρώταρχε,
συμμιχθεὶς κοινὸς γενόμενος;

ΠΡΩ.

LQ. Οὕτω καὶ τὸν τοιοῦτον λέγω ἔγωγε.

ἐξ ἀμφοῖν
᾿Ηδονῆς λέγεις καὶ νοῦ καὶ φρονήσεως;

ΠΡΩ. lds δήπου τοῦτόν γ᾽ αἱρήσεται πρότερον ἣ ἐκεί-
7 tis x pores
νῶν ὁποτερονοῦν, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις γ᾽ οὐχ ὁ μέν, ὁ δ᾽ οὔ.

ἐξ ἀμφοῖν συμμιχθείς] 1.4., διὰ τὸ
συμμιχθῆναι. This use of the participle
is very frequent in Plato. Compare Rep.
6, 506. προθυμούμενος ἀσχημονῶν γέλωτ᾽
ὀφλήσω,---ἶ.6., διὰ τὸ προθυμεῖσθαι.

Arist. Ran. 1129, where a number of
reasons has already been given. Schlei-
ermacher understands, in addition to
those lives (the unmixed); but this
would have been éxelvois; and besides,

Kal πρὸς τούτοις ye] This is com-
monly understood to mean and be-
sides; but it is evident that nothing
additional is stated. Stallbaum’s de-
fence of it, ‘notio atque vis praecedentis
πᾶς uae mig et augetur,’ is only true
as to conjfirmatur, whereas augetur is
_ the point in question. Nor can πρὸς
τούτοις be used for πρὸς τούτῳ, except
dn such instances as that quoted from

how can a man choose both contraries,
the unmixed and the mixed together?
The only solution I can offer of the
passage is to limit the πᾶς to those
present, for Socrates himself had said
ἡμῶν, and to understand πρὸς τούτοις in
addition to these here. But I confess
that such a meaning would be far more
probable if we could venture to supply
ἡμῶν after πᾶς.

2—2

| . Μανθάνομεν οὖν ὅ τι viv ἡμῖν
τοῖς παροῦσι λόγοις; ͵ ΜΕΝ
TIPQ. Πώνυ μὲν οὖν, ὅτι τρεῖς μὲν. ἐν βίοι προῦτ |
δυοῖν δ᾽ οὐδέτερος ἱκανὸς οὐδ᾽ αἱρετὸς οὔτ᾽ “pérey TE
wy οὐδενί. et ye
DQ. Μῶν οὖν οὐκ ἤδη τούτων γε πέρι δῆλον ὡς οὐδέτερος ς
αὐτῶν εἶχε τἀγαθόν: ; ἣν γὰρ dv ἱκανὸς καὶ τέλεος καὶ πάσα
φυτοῖς καὶ ζώοις αἱρετός, οἷσπερ δυνατὸν ἣν οὕτως ἀεὶ διὰ
βίου. ζῆν. εἰ δέ τις ἄλλα ἐρεῖθ᾽ ἡμῶν, παρὰ φύσα ἂν τὴν τοῦ
ἀληθῶς αἱρετοῦ ἐλάμβανεν ἄκων ἐξ ἀγνοίας, ἤ Twos ἀνάγκης
οὐκ εὐδαίμονος.
ΠΡΩ. "ἔοικε γῶν ταῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχειν.
ΣΏ. Ὥς μὲν τοίνυν τήν γε Φιλήβου θεὸν οὐ ) δεῖ διανοεῖσθαι
ταὐτὸν καὶ τἀγαθόν, ἱ ἱκανῶς εἰρῆσθαί μοι δοκεῖ. Α
,
ΦΙ. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ σὸς νοῦς, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἔστι τἀγαθόν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἕξει που ταὐτὰ ἐγκλήματα.
DQ. Tay’ ἄν, ὦ Φίληβε, ὅ “γ᾽ ἐμός: οὐ péevTot Tov γ᾽
Χο τ Y ἸτᾺ μ
ἀληθινὸν ἅμα καὶ θεῖον οἶμαι νοῦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἄλλως πως ἔχειν. τῶν.
\ 3 ’ ᾿ ᾿ κ᾿ ’ 3 δ a
μὲν οὖν νικητηρίων πρὸς τὸν κοινὸν βίον οὐκ ἀμφισβητῶ πω
ὑπὲρ νοῦ, τῶν δὲ δὴ δευτερείων ὁρᾶν καὶ σκοπεῖν χρὴ πέρι τί
δράσομεν. τάχα γὰρ ἄν τοῦ κοινοῦ τούτου βίου αἰτιῴμεθ᾽ av.
δ τ΄ e A Ν a a ς δ᾽ ὃ A 3 A e A
ἑκάτερος O μὲν TOY νοῦν αἴτιον; ὁ δ᾽ ἡδονὴν εἶναι, καὶ οὕτω TO
‘ . Q , 9 , Δ) “Δ By , > AK
μὲν ἀγαθὸν τούτων ἀμφοτέρων οὐδέτερον ἂν εἴη, τάχα δ᾽ av
αἴτιόν τις ὑπολάβοι πότερον αὐτῶν εἶναι. τούτου δὴ πέρι καὶ
ce “᾿ ‘ ᾿ , x e 9 la ~
μαλλον ἔτι προς Φίληβον διαμαχοίμην ἂν, ὡς ἐν τῷ μικτῷ
, U 4 ’ 3 ςΨ An? a \ e , aS , a
τούτῳ βίῳ, ὅ Ti ποτ᾽ ἔστι τοῦθ᾽ ὃ λαβὼν ὁ Bios οὗτος γέγο-
ε ᾿ e Ne θ ’ 3 ἐδ 4 ee a fon
νεν αἱρετὸς ἅμα καὶ ἀγαθός, οὐχ ἡδονὴ ἀλλὰ νοῦς. τούτῳ
ξυγγενέστερον καὶ ὁμοιότερόν ἐστι. καὶ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν
λόγον οὔτ᾽ av τῶν πρωτείων οὐδ᾽ αὖ τῶν δευτερείων. ἡδονῇ
τῷ ἀληθῶς ἄν ποτε λέγοιτο. τοῤῥώξερωι: δέ ἐστι τῶν τρι-
τείων, εἴ τι τῷ ἐμῷ νῷ δεῖ πιστεύειν ἡμᾶς τὰ νῦν.
TIPQ. ᾿Αλλὰ μήν, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ νῦν ἡδονή

οὐκ ἀμφισβητῶ πω] It is difficult to | mention of the θεῖος νοῦς, the relation
account for rw in this place, for he-| of which to that of man is afterwards J
evidently renounces for ever the claims | treated of.
of νοῦς to the first prize, and contends otre—ov8’ αὖ] Of this conateiedilall
- only for the second, Perhaps the re- | Stallbaum gives the following instances:
servation may be accounted for by his | Phil. 42 B; Legg. 840 4; Rep. 608 By ἢ

me F xs

2 hye ὃ ὑπὸ τῶν νῦν sy δὴ λόγων.
ea πέρι δ χομενη κεταϊ: tov δὲ ᾿γοῦν, ὡς
Vv ὡς ἐμφρόνως. οὐκ ἀντεποιεῖτο τῶν νικητηρίων"
πα a oa a a ὃν δὲ δὴ dev , : “
p αὐτὰ ἔπαθεν ἀν. τῶν de δὴ δευτερείων στερηθεῖσα
παντάπασιν ἄν τινα καὶ τύ λα σχοίη πρὸς τῶν
ἐραστῶν" οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐκείνοις ἔτ᾽ ἂν ὁμοίως φαίνοιτο

aS Rene Ti οὖν: οὐκ ἄμεινον αὐτὴν ἐᾶν ἤδη καὶ μὴ τὴν
Γ᾽ Δ νὰ ,
4 ΠΕ βιστάτιν αὐτῇ προσφέροντα βάσανον καὶ ἐξελέγχοντα
λυπεῖν;
TPQ. Οὐδὲν λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες.
er DQ). Αρ᾽ ὅτι τὸ ἀδύνατον εἶπον, λυπεῖν ἡδονήν;
| ΠΡΩ. Οὐ μόνον ye, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι καὶ ἀγνοεῖς ὡς οὐδείς πώ
i eee) , A A 9 , 3 4 “
| oe ἡμῶν μεθήσει, πρὶν ἂν εἰς τέλος ἐπεξέλθης τούτων τῷ
᾿ς “λόγῳ.
2Q. BaBai ἄρα, ὦ ΠΡρώταρχε, συχνοῦ μὲν λόγου τοῦ
λοιποῦ, σχεδὸν δὲ οὐδὲ ῥᾳδίου πάνυ τι νῦν. καὶ γὰρ δὴ φαίνε-
ται δεῖν ἄλλης μηχανῆς ἐπὶ τὰ δευτερεῖα ὑπὲρ νοῦ πορευόμε-
Σ Ω , 4 “A ? , + ,
“νον, Οἷον pert i τ τεῳ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν λογων: ἔστι ὃ
ἴσως ἕνια καὶ ταὐτά. οὐκοῦν χρή;
ΠΡΩ. Πῶς γὰρ =
12. 2Q. Τὴν δέ γ᾽ ἀρχὴν αὐτοῦ διευλαβεῖσθαι πειρώ-
μεθα τιθέμενοι.
TIPQ. [1Ποίαν δὴ λέγεις:

2Q. Πάντα τὰ νῦν ὄντα ἐν τῷ παντὶ διχῆ διαλάβωμεν,

———— αν ὐπασο

“μᾶλλον δ᾽, εἰ βούλει, τριχῇ.

TIPQ. Kad’ ὅ τι dpaCas ἄν.

ΣΩ. λάβωμεν ἄττα τῶν νῦν δὴ λόγων.
᾿ “ΡΟ Ifoia;

Σ. Tov θεὸν ἐλέγομέν που τὸ μὲν ἄπειρον δεῖξαι τῶν

"ὄντων, τὸ δὲ πέρας:

ΟΉΡΩ. Πάνυ μὲν οὗν.

a “y bid. 426 B; from which it appears δεῖν ἄλλης pyxavijs] This is a
that although οὔτε---οὐδὲ is inadmissible, | singular construction of δεῖν, at once
᾿οὔτε---οὐδ᾽ αὖ or οὐδέ γε are correct. ΠΥ a genitive and an infinitive; but
ae ᾿ῥᾳδίου] The best MSS. have ῥάδιον; | as the ἄλλη μηχανὴ consists in ἔχειν
but the μὲν after συχνοῦ appears to me B. é., this is added by way of expla-
_ conclusive in favourof the otherreading. | nation.

μούμενος.

ΠΡῸΣ Ei. ae ὦ aOR
62:
ΠΡΩ. λέγε τίνος.

ΣΩ. Τῆς ξυμμίξεως τούτων πρὸς Doxa τὴν αἰτίαν δι ο
καὶ τίθει μοι πρὸς τρισὶν ἐκείνοις τέταρτον τοῦτ.
ΠΡΩ. Μῶν οὖν σοι καὶ πέμπτου προσδεήσει Sa

τινος δυναμένου; 3

> ~ “
ΣΩΏ. Tay’ ἄν: οὐ μὴν οἶμαί γ᾽ ἐν τῷ νῦν.
, ’
συγγνώσει πού μοι σὺ μεταδιώκοντι πέμπτον rs

HPQ. Ti py;

2A. Lpcroy μὲν δὴ TOV τεττάρων τὰ τρία διελόμενοι, ὦ
τὰ δύο τούτων πειρώμεθα πολλὰ ἑκάτερον ἐσχισμένον καὶ
διεσπασμένον ἰδόντες, εἰς ἕν πάλιν ἑκάτερον συναγαγόντες,
νοῆσαι πῆ ποτὲ ἣν αὐτῶν ἕν καὶ πολλὰ ἑκάτερον.

ΠΡΩ. Ei μοι σαφέστερον ἔτι περὶ αὐτῶν εἴποις, τάχ᾽

\
av ἑποίμην.

Σ Δ. Δέγω τοίνυν τὰ δύο, ἃ a προτίθεμαι, 5 ταῦτ᾽ εἶναι ἅπερ

νῦν δή, τὸ μὲν ἄπειρον, τὸ δὲ πέρας ἔχον. ὅτι δὲ τρόπον͵ τινά

τούτων δὴ τῶν εἰδῶν] It is evident
that the πέρας and ἄπειρον spoken of
above are different from those now
brought forward. In the former case
they express the indefinite multitude of
the individuals and the definite number
of species; in the latter, the unlimited
nature of all quality and quantity in
the abstract, and the definite propor-
tions of the same in existing things.
But in both cases we find that the
effect of the πέρας is analogous; that
knowledge in dialectics and lifein physics
are the result of a certain limitation.
- διιστὰς καὶ συναριθμούμενος] We
must understand by this, attempting to
distinguish and enumerate. He means
that his attempt to be an accurate

analyzer and classifier makes him ridi-.

culous, because he fails in the first
outset.

μῶν οὖν] This question and the
answer given to it are of importance,

F τρίτον ἐξ ἀμφοῖν τούτοιν ἕν τι τι ξυμμισγ Sa
= ἔοικεν, ἐγὼ γελοῖός Tl ἱκανῶς κατ᾽ εἴδη, Sucre ͵

Terdproy μοι γένους. αὖ προσδεῖν. wcrereitely

᾿ ἐὰν δὲ τι Sens

Ὗ

being introduced by Plato not only as
an example of the care which is re-
quisite in every dialectic process to
leave no distinction unnoticed which
may help towards a complete classifica-*
tion, but still more because it serves to
bring out in its full significance the ©
αἰτία τῆς Evwpltews. Had this latter —
been a mere agent, one would expect —
the counter-agent to be also mentioned ;
but Socrates observing in his ironical
manner, ‘that he does not think he shall —
want any such,’ prepares us to attach a
higher importance to the αἰτία than to
anything yet spoken of. Ihave followed —
all later editors in bracketing βίον,Ἠ —
which is clearly out of place; but Τὸ
think another word (εἶδος or yer) is
were ᾿ς room. > ΒΝ
πο K. ἐσ ΜΈΝ ἢ τον ,
σμένον] πολλὰ an much, nor into
many, but existing as many ἊΝ
division and dispersion.

0 F rele σε σκοπεῖν. ὅμως δὲ σκόπει. ie καὶ seme

répou πέρι Ἔργον ὅρα πέρας εἴ ποτέ τι νοήσαις ἄν, ἢ τὸ
ἐπδλλόν τε καὶ ἧττον ἐν αὐτοῖς οἰκοῦντε τοῖς γένεσιν, ἕωστερ
ἂν ἐνοικῆτον, τέλος οὐκ ἂν ᾿ἐπιτρεψαίτην γίγνεσθαι: γενομένης
᾿ γὰρ τελευτῆς καὶ αὐτὼ τετελευτήκατον.

IPQ. ᾿Αληθέστατα λέγεις.

2Q. ᾿Αεὶ δέ γε, φαμέν, ἔν τε τῷ θερμοτέρῳ καὶ τῷ
ψυχροτέρῳ τὸ μᾶλλόν τε καὶ ἧττον ἔνι.

HPQ: Kai μάλα.

2ZQ. "Aci τοίνυν ὁ λόγος σημαίνει τούτω μὴ τέλος ἔχειν'
ἀτελῆ δ᾽ ὄντε δήπου παντάπασιν ἀπείρω γίγνεσθον.

HPQ. Kai σφόδρα 6 @ Σώκρατες.

2.

ἀνέμνησας OTL καὶ TO σφόδρα τοῦθ᾽ ὁ σὺ νῦν ἐφθέγξω καὶ τό

᾿Αλλ᾽ εὖ Y's ῶ φίλε τ ρον ὦ ὑπέλαβες, καὶ

>] 9 ’ 4 9 A δύ » “ o , : .«. »»
Y ἤρεμα THY αὐτὴν ὀύναμιν ἔχετον τῷ μαλλον τε καὶ ἧττον.
Ψ 4 A 2A 9 ὮΝ > Ais τὰν ς > 9 A
Ὅπου yap ἂν ενῆτον, οὐκ εἄτον εἶναι ποσὸν ἕκαστον, GAA ἀεί

A 4A , ,
σφοδρότερον ἡσυχαιτέρου καὶ τοὐναντίον ἑκασταις πράξεσιν
> “ A , 4 A of 9 ’ A Α
εμποιοῦντε τὸ πλεὸον καὶ τὸ ἐλαττον ἀπεργάζεσθον, τὸ δὲ
A 9 εἴ 4 a A
Too ov ἀφανίζετον. ὃ γὰρ ἐλέχθη νῦν δή, μὴ ἀφανίσαντε το

, id oe ἡ ὁ 9 , A \ , 9 a A “-

ποσὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐάσαντε αὐτὸ τε καὶ τὸ μέτριον ἐν TH τοῦ μὰλ-
4 » Α , A ’ , v4 5 ’ 9 4
λον καὶ ἧττον Kal σφόδρα καὶ ἤρεμα ἕδρᾳ ἐγγενέσθαι, αὐτα
a?

+ A A a A
ἔῤῥει ταῦτα ἐκ τῆς αὑτῶν χήρας ἐν ἣ ἐνῆν. οὐ γὰρ ἔτι

i θερμό-
τερον οὐδὲ ψυχρότερον εἴτην ὧν λαβόντε τὸ ποσόν" προχωρεῖ
γὰρ καὶ οὐ μένει τό τε NERS μον ἀεὶ καὶ τὸ ψυχρότερον
ὡσαύτως, τὸ δὲ ποσὸν ἔστη καὶ προϊὸν ἐπαύσατο. κατὰ δὴ

εἰ λάβοιεν, and not εἰ ἔλαβον, the
optative εἴτην which rests on ἔτην in

σἰκοῦντε] This is Stallbaum’s correc-
tion for olkovy. The words τοῖς γένεσιν

are not to be taken with ἐν αὐτοῖς, in
the kinds themselves, which would be
needlessly emphatical, but with τέλος
οὐκ ἂν ἐπιτρεψαίτην γίγνεσθαι, would
not allow any bound to be fixed to the
kinds (hotter and colder) as long as they
resided in them.

αὐτώ] i.c., the more and the less.

λαβόντε τὸ πόσον] If they were to
admit quantity.

As λαβόντε here is ,

Bodl. and ἔστην in Ven. is better than
ἤστην (Bekk. and Stallb.), which was
conjectured by the scribe of the Vat.
MS., who could make nothing of
ἔστην.

τὸ δὲ πόσον ἔστη καὶ προϊὸν
ἐπαύσατο] But the So Much stood still,
and ceased to advance,—namely, before
it was expelled by μᾶλλόν τε καὶ ἧττον.
This will account for the use of the

τοῦτον τὸν ayes 7

ναντίον ἅμα.

aes τόν τ᾽ ἐρωτῶντα καὶ τὸν ἐρωτώμενον ‘tai αν

ξυμφωνοῦντας proper:

ΣΏΩ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εὖ μὲν at ai καὶ τεῖρατέον οὕτω ποιεῖν"
μέντοι ἄθρει τῆς τοῦ ἀπείρου eae εἰ τοῦτο δεξόμεθα a
ἵνα μὴ πάντ᾽ ἐπεξιόντες μηκύνωμεν.

ΠΡΩ. To ποῖον δὴ λέγεις:

ν ἜΝ ©

a

ΣΏ. Ὁπόσ᾽ av ἡμῖν φαίνηται μᾶλλόν τε καὶ ἧττον γιγ-

νόμενα καὶ τὸ σφόδρα καὶ ἠρέμα δεχόμενα καὶ τὸ λίαν καὶ

“ “ , 9 | “ 4 , ’ e >, A ὃ ~
οσα TOLAVUTA TAVYTA, εἰς TO TOU a7rél Ou yevos ὡς εἰς ἐν OELV

’ an , A \ + , εἴ 4
πάντα ταῦτα τιθέναι, κατὰ TOV ἔμπροσθεν λόγον, ὃν ἔφαμεν, ;

΄ A
ὅσα διέσπασται καὶ διέσχισται συναγαγόντας χρῆναι κατὰ

, ’ ’ ’ ἢ , 9 ,
δύναμιν μιαν ἐπισημαίνεσθαί τινα φύσιν, εἰ μεμνῆσαι.

ΠΡΩ. Μέμ ey

DQ. Οὐκοῦν ra μὴ oexdneve, kei τούτων δὲ τἀναντία

πάντα δεχόμενα; πρῶτον μὲν τὸ ἴσον καὶ ἰσότητα. μετὰ δὲ τὸ

ἴσον τὸ διπλάσιον καὶ πᾶν ὅ τί περ ἂν πρὸς ἀριθμὸν ἀριθμὸς

A , “ ’ A
ἢ μέτρον ἣ προς μετρον; ταύυτα ξύμπαντα εἰς TO πέρας
A «ἃ - a "“ a A ᾽
ἀπολογιζόμενοι καλῶς ἂν δοκοῖμεν δρᾶν τοῦτο, ἢ πῶς σὺ

φής:

TPQ. ΚΚαλλιστά γ᾽, ὦ Σώκρατες.

aorists. The difference between μᾶλλον
Kal ἧττον and σφόδρα καὶ ἠρέμα is not
such as Stallbaum expresses in his
paraphrase, ‘It is an Indefinite, not
only extensively as to quantity, but also
intensively as to quality; for the ex-
ample chosen (of heat and cold) belongs
much more properly to the latter.
Besides, if quantity had been intended,
he would have expressed that by πλέον
kal ἔλαττον. Intensity of degree is
meant in both instances, but the dis-
tinction is marked by the speaker him-
_ self, when he adds to one τοῖς γένεσιν,
and to the other ταῖς πράξεσιν. In the
first case the quality is looked upon as
a state; in the second, as an immediate
effect. τὸ πόσον is ‘the limit of the
.former; τὸ μέτριον of the latter.
τὸ δ᾽ εἰς αὖθίς τε καὶ αὖθις] Unless
we read λεχθέν, or suppose an infinitive

to have dropped out, the article appears
quite unaccountable. I can find no
example of its use with αὖθις or eis
αὖθις. I suspect taxa δ᾽, which is
commonly joined with ἔσως, to be the
right word.

μίαν ἐπισημαίνεσθαί τινα φύσιν]
To set upon them the seal of some one
nature,—t.e., by giving them a generic
name. We should have expected rov-
τοις, but as ἐπισημαίνεσθαι involves the
meaning of ὀνομάζειν, and is therefore
susceptible of a double accusative,
ταῦτα may be understood as governed
ἀπὸ κοινοῦ by συναγαγόντας and ἐπιση-
μαίνεσθαι.

καὶ πᾶν ὃ τί περ κ. τ. é.] That is
the triple, the quadruple, the third, the
fourth, and so on with all multiples and —
all measures, whether in numbers or
figures.

ouer ἔ ἔχειν:

μῖν νῦν δὴ γεγονέναι.

λόγφ.
TIPQ. λέγε μόνον.

τερον. ἢ γάρ;
me ΉΡΩ. Nai.

αὖ τοῦ πέρατος γένναν.
IPQ. Tlotav;
=Q.

συναγαγεῖν:

a ,
γενήσεται.

γένναν] Not ‘finiti genus’ (Stallb.),
a misconception which has led to a
wrong view of the whole passage, but
the whole race or family, τὰ δεχόμενα
"τὸ πέρας. See the following notes.
οὐ συνηγάγομεν)] It may be asked,
was there not a sufficient συναγωγὴ
oa in οὐκοῦν τὰ μὴ δεχόμενα κ. ἑ. Ἷ
or if not, in what is the definition which
_ follows better than that former one?
Sut this is not Plato’s meaning. The
ciency complained of is, that they
not made an enumeration of the
ings which contain the πέρας. For

νὰ

}

}

> , ; 4 Φ 4 A A A A
i 4 “ἀπείρου συνηγάαγομεν Εἰς EV, OUTW Καὶ THV του περατοειδοῦς͵
ΓΕ. 5 ἢ

οὐ συνηγαγομεν.

ἐ oe Kat —— φράσεις, ὡς as |
A. Θοὺς μὲν οὗν, av πέρ γ᾽ ἐμαῖς εὐχαῖς ἐπήκοος γίγνη-

ao. ᾿Εὔχου δὴ καὶ σκόπει.
— 2Q. Σκοπῶ, καί μοι δοκεῖ ris, ὦ Πρώταρχε, αὐτῶν φίλος

᾿ Υ̓́ ΠΡΩ. Πῶς λέγεις ees καὶ τίνι τεκμηρίῳ χρῆ:
me DQ. Φράσω δῆλον ὅτι. σὺ δέ μοι συνακολούθησον τῷ

ZQ. Θερμότερον ἐφθεγγόμεθα νῦν δή πού τι καὶ ψυχρό-

ΣΩ. ἹΤΠρόσθες δὴ ξηρότερον καὶ ὑγρότερον αὐτοῖς καὶ
, Ν᾿ αν A “ Α , 4 a A

πλέον καὶ ἔλαττον, καὶ θᾶττον καὶ βραδύτερον, καὶ μεῖζον Kat

σμικρότερον, καὶ ῥὑπόσα ἐν τῷ πρόσθεν τῆς τὸ μᾶλλόν τε καὶ

ἧττον δεχομένης ἐτίθεμεν εἰς ἕν φύσεως.

TPQ. Tie τοῦ ἀπείρου λέγεις:

ZQ. Nai. συμμίγνυ δέ γε εἰς αὐτὴν τὸ μετὰ ταῦτα τὴν

“Hy καὶ νῦν δὴ δέον ἡμᾶς, καθάπερ τὴν τοῦ

5 a =
ἀλλ᾿ νῦν TavTov

x 4
ἐσῶς Kal

ἢ : ἃ , , 3 , , A 9 ,
| Opace τούτων ἀμφοτέρων συναγομένων καταφανής καἀκεινῆη

while we have πέρας corresponding to
ἄπειρον, and toov καὶ διπλάσιον to μᾶλ-
λον καὶ ἥττον, σφόδρα καὶ ἠρέμα, and
the like, we have nothing to answer to
ὑγρότερον καὶ ξηρότερον and the other
examples. These are supplied by
Socrates further on in the passage
beginning dp’ οὐκ ἐν μὲν νόσοις.

ταὐτὸν δράσει] This is interpreted
by Stallbaum, as 2 will do as well; but
the only example given from Ep. 5,
322, ταὐτὸν δὴ οἶμαι δρᾶσαι ἂν καὶ τὴν
ἐμὴν ξυμβουλὴν does not support this
usage, for the context of that passage

ἐνθεῖσα ἀριθμὸν ἀπεργάζεται.

ΠΡΩ. Μωνθάνω' φαίνει γάρ μοι arias men
γενέσεις τινὰς ἀφ᾽ ἑκάστων συμβαίνειν. :

ῬΑ ᾿Ορθῶς γὰρ φαίνομαι.

TIPQ. Λέγε τοίνυν.
2Q.

ὑγιείας φύσιν ἐγέννησεν:

TPQ. [Παντάπασι μὲν οὖν. aes
eines καὶ ταχεῖ καὶ βραδεῖ,

οὐ ταὐτὰ ἐγγιγνόμενα ταῦθ᾽ ἅμα πέρας

2Q. °Eyv 3@&

9 μ“ > a 9
ATELPOLS OUGLY, ap

ὀξεῖ

’ ‘
τ᾽ ἀπειργάσατο καὶ μουσικὴν ξύμπασαν τελεώτατα ξυνεστή- :

TAaTO,

ΠΡΩ. Μάλιστά γε.

shows plainly that Plato’s meaning is,
1 presume any one would do the same to
me; if he found me incurable, he would
let me alone; I should therefore propose
tw for τήν, and take ἐμὴν ξυμβουλὴν
for advice offered to me. In our text,
we should get rid of an awkward
asyndeton, and obtain a natural sense,
if we read, ἀλλ᾽ tows καὶ νῦν ταὐτὸν
δράσασι, τούτων ἀ. σ. K. K. γενήσεται.
But perhaps if we now do the same thing
(with the family of πέρας as we did
with that of ἄπειρον) when both are
enumerated together, that other (the
. third kind) will also be made apparent.
This was the only way in which ἡ τοῦ
πέρατος γέννα could be enumerated, —
namely, as in connexion with the things
which they limit; but in that connexion
we find not only them, but the third
kind also, which is the result of the
connexion.

τὴν τοῦ ἴσου] Protarchus’ question,
ποίαν, referred not to κἀκείνη, but to
ἣν οὐ συνηγάγομεν, that is, ἡ τοῦ πέρατος
γέννα. This Socrates now describes as,
whatever puts an end to the contradic-
tion im opposites. For every indefinite
has two opposite extremes, μᾶλλον καὶ
ἧττον, which being unlimited, and
having no proportion in themselves,
would be in continual contradiction, if
they were not tempered and harmonized
by the agencies belonging to the class of

30. Σ ἢν ἢ τοῦ ἴσου καὶ διπλασία ὁ
ἄλληλα τἀναντία διαφόρως ἔ ἔχοντα; σύμμετρα ὁ

°Ap’ οὐκ ἐν μὲν νόσοις ἡ τούτων ὀρθὴ κοινωνία °

πέρας, which effects this by introducing —
in each case a suitable number or basis
of proportion. * Here again the “word —
ἀριθμόν, occurring in the singular, has _
been misinterpreted in consequence of —
the oversight I have before pointed out.
Had he been speaking of the Limit in
general, he would no doubt have said
ἀριθμούς, but as he is describing the ©
particular instances, and uses the form
ὁπόση, the singular is most appro-
priate.

μιγνύσι ταῦτα] The MSS. and Edd.
have μιγνύς, an anacolouthon, where ~
such a figure is a capricious violation
of grammar, serving no purpose of ©
clearness or emphasis. I have there-
fore adopted the correction proposed by
Klitsch.

νόσοις] The indefinite exixeuita of
heat and cold, moist and dry, ὅθ.
Τούτων and ταὐτὰ ταῦτα are the γέννα
τοῦ πέρατος, instances of the limit, not —
the πέρας and ἄπειρον, as Stallbaum Ὁ
supposes, for how can they be said to
be ἐν τοῖς ἀπείροις or πέρας Brepyd-
σασθαιξ On the other hand, we can —
say with perfect propriety that each
limitative agent produces a limit.

Μάλιστά ye] The best authenticated
reading is Κάλλιστα; but the con-—
tinual confusion of the two words: is

“2

- ie | 2
- a eae TTAA
Ww ; τ, Gd
- AALD
: .
Ν

27

᾿ ΣΏ. Kal μὴν ἔν γε χειμῶσι καὶ πνίγεσιν ἐγγενόμενα τὸ

μὲν πολὺ λίαν καὶ ἄπειρον ἀφείλετο, τὸ δ᾽ ἔμμετρον καὶ ἅμα

σύμμετρον ἀπειργάσατο.

ἢ TPQ. Ti μήν;

οἰ 2Q. Οὐκοῦν ἐκ τούτων Gpal τε καὶ ὅσα καλὰ πάνθ᾽

ἡμῖν γέγονε, τῶν τε ἀπείρων καὶ
᾿μιχθέντων 5

ΠΡΩ. Πῶς δ᾽ οὔ;

ZQ. Kai ἄλλα δὴ μυρί᾽ ἐπιλείπω λέγων, οἷον μεθ᾽ ὑγιείας
κάλλος καὶ ἰσχύν, καὶ ἐν ψυχαῖς αὖ πάμπολλα ἕτερα καὶ
| πάγκαλα. ὕβριν yap που καὶ ξύμπασαν πάντων πονηρίαν
αὕτη κατιδοῦσα ἡ σὴ θεός, ὦ καλὲ Φίληβε, πέρας οὔθ᾽ ἡδονῶν

δὲ + Xr a“ eS 9 ς a 9 , , A ,
QUOEV OUTE πλήσμονων ἐνὸν εν QAUTOLS EXOVT OY, VOKLOV Και τάξιν

A , 3 ,
των. περᾶς εχοντῶν συμ-

᾿ , ἔθ ω A A ‘ 9 cn Α of a. UN δὲ
ue TEPAas E€VETO καὶ QU μεν ATOKVYALGAL pus QUTYV., eyo Ε

-

ἜΑ ΝΣ

᾽ ; Ἢ “ 4
τοὐναντίον ἀποσῶσαι λέγω.
, ;
φαίνεται;

Σοὶ .δ᾽, ὦ ΠΡρώταρχε, πῶς

ΠΡΩ. Kai μάλα, ὦ Σώκρατες; ἔμοιγε κατὰ νοῦν.

ZQ. Οὐκοῦν τὰ μὲν δὴ τρία ταῦτ᾽ εἴρηκα, εἰ ξυννοεῖς.

ΠΡΩ.

᾿Αλλ᾽ οἶμαι κατανοεῖν: ἕν μὲν yap μοι δοκεῖς τὸ

9 ré A δὲ ᾿ ὃ , \ , 9 a > ’
απειρον EVELVs Εν O€ Και ευὐτέερον TO TEpas εν τοις OUGL, τριτον

δὲ οὐ σφόδρα κατέχω τί βούλει φραζειν.

known to all who are familiar with
paleography, and there cannot be a

_ doubt which of the two is most appro-

priate here. In Phedr. 263, for
καλὸν γοῦν ἄν, we must read μᾶλλον
γοῦν ἄν. A few pages further on, the
Vatican MS. has κάλλιστα for μάλιστα,
where the latter is obviously right.

ἡ σὴ θεός] The notion that this is a
personification of the third γένος is
sufficiently refuted by the appeal to
Philebus, which could only be made
because his goddess was in question.
It is so probable that σὴ was lost in
consequence of its nearness to ἡ, and it
seems so necessary for the sense, that I
have restored it conjecturally. The
next clause, as it occurs in MSS. and
Edd., is utterly out of construction, and
even Stallbaum appears to be only half
in earnest in defending it. πέρας οὔτε
ἡδονῶν οὐδὲν οὔτε πλησμονῶν ἐνὸν ἐν
αὐτοῖς, νόμον καὶ τάξιν πέρας ἐχόντων
ἔθετο. Such is the reading of the

4 Bodleian and the two MSS. which

mostly agree with it. The inferior
copies have ἔχοντ᾽, which I regard as a
conjecture such as one often finds from
the hands of the more recent scribes ;
nor are they always unfortunate ones.
But of what use can ἔχοντε be to us?
Law and order are the limit in this
case, and can scarcely be said to have
it. I have therefore accepted ἐχόντων
as right, but in its wrong place; that is
omitted by accident, and then restored
to a part of the text to which it did not
belong.

ἀποκναῖσαι]7 Plato uses this word in
Rep. 3, 406, for to enfeeble. In comedy
it occurs in the sense of to bore to
death. There is no evidence of its
being ‘ verbum palestricum,’ as Winck-
elmann supposes; at least, not in the
sense he intends by his paraphrase,
‘Deam Voluptatem rationibus et argu-
mentis tanquam ictibus percussam conci-
disse.’ The sense is, and you say that
she has enfeebled them (πάντας), but I
afirm that she has saved them.

γένει ἕν ἐφάνη.

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αληθῆ.

Σ Ων Kai μὴν τό γε πέρας οὔτε πολλὰ εἶχεν, οὔτ

σκολαίνομεν ὡς οὐκ ἥν ἕν φύσει.

ΠΡΩ. Πῶς γὰρ ἄν;

Ee. OR ERO ἀλλὰ τρίτον φάθι με ree ἕν τοῦτο
'πιθέντα τὸ τούτων ἔκγονον ἅπαν, γένεσιν εἰς οὐσίαν ἐκ τῶν
μετὰ τοῦ πέρατος ἀπειργασμένων μέτρων.

ΠΡΩ.
14. ΣΩ.

”Epabovr.

\ » a

εἶναι γένος σκεπτέον. κοινὴ δ᾽ ἡ σκέψις" ὅρα yap εἴ σοι δοκεῖ
a U ’

ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πάντα τὰ γιγνόμενα διά τιν᾽ αἰτίαν γίγνεσθαι.

IPQ.

) an A “ ‘ ἃ Ὁ ,
ZQ. Οὐκοῦν ἡ τοῦ ποιοῦντος φύσις οὐδὲν πλὴν ὀνόματι
“ sf , A A a 4 Ν x 3 A“ A Ψ. τὰ
τῆς αἰτίας διαφέρει, τὸ δὲ ποιοῦν καὶ τὸ αἴτιον ὀρθῶς av εἴη.

λεγόμενον ἕν;

IIPS. Ὀρθῶς.

481
ΣΩ. Καὶ μὴν τό γε ποιούμενον αὖ καὶ τὸ γιγνόμενον οὐδὲν
/ A a a. ἿἾἿ
“πλὴν ὀνόματι, καθάπερ τὸ νῦν δή, διαφέρον εὑρήσομεν. ἢ πῶς:

HPQ. οὕτως.

- A “ 4 , A
Σ Αρ᾽ οὖν ἡγεῖται μὲν τὸ ποιοῦν ἀεὶ κατὰ φύσιν, τὸ
δὲ ποιούμενον ἐπακολουθεῖ γιγνόμενον ἐκείνῳ;

HPQ. Law γε.

οὔτε πόλλ᾽ εἶχεν] This is a strange
assertion after πέρας had been declared
to contain ‘every possible relation of
number to number and measure,’ and
the instances of it were said to be
μυρία. Hither ἧττον or an additional
negative must have dropped out.

γένεσιν eis οὐσίαν] In order to
understand this passage, it is again
necessary to observe the same kind of
‘distinction as was made in the case
of πέρας between the ἴσοτης, ἡμίσυ,
“διπλοῦν, on the one side, and the
instances of it in Natwre on the other.
Td τούτων ἔκγονὸν ἅπαν, is here equiva-
lent to the instances; these are also
included under the term γένεσις εἰς

yevns ὅμως 8 serail τῷ TOU 5 μᾶ

᾿Αλλὰ δὴ πρὸς τρισὶ TérapTov τι τότ᾽ ἔφαμεν

SYA “ Ν a ‘ , U ‘Ss
Enoye TT WS γὰρ αν χώρις τούτου YLYVOLTO,

-

οὐσίαν, by which is implied that every
existing thing arises from this combiha-
tion. They are said to arise ἐκ τῶν
μέτρων, from the proportions, or pro-
portionate quantities and degrees, ἀπειρ-
γασμένων μετὰ τοῦ πέρατος, which are
effected simultaneously with the πέρας
(proportion in the abstract), for as soon
as ever the πέρας enters into aul
its properties immediately receive

due proportion. The whole passage
may therefore be translated, —— But
understand mé to mean by the third
kind the whole produce of these two, con-
sidering all such produce as one, as ὦ
coming into being, derived from the pro-
portions produced along with the Limit.

25.
. "Ado ἄρα καὶ οὐ ταὐτὸν αἰτία τ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ δου-
ον εἰς γένεσιν agg.

TPQ. Ti μήν!
39. Οὐκοῦν τὰ μὲν γιγνόμενα καὶ ἐξ ὧν γίγνεται πάντα
ἃ τρία παρέσχετο ἡμῖν γένη;

— TIPQ. Kai μάλα.
ΣΩ. To δὲ δὴ πάντα ταῦτα δημιουργοῦν λέγομεν τέταρ-
τον, τὴν αἰτίαν, ὡς ἱκανῶς ἕτερον ἐκείνων δεδηλωμένον;

ΠΡΩ. “Ἕτερον γὰρ οὗν.

ὩΣ τρθῷς μὴν ἔχει, διωρισμένων τῶν τεττάρων, ἑνὸς
ἑκάστου μνήμης ἕνεκα ἐφεξῆς αὐτὰ καταριθμήσασθαι.

HPQ. Τί μήν; |

DQ. Πρῶτον μὲν τοίνυν ἄπειρον λέγω, δεύτερον δὲ πέρας.
ἔπειτ᾽ ἐκ τούτων τρίτον μικτὴν καὶ γεγενημένην οὐσίαν: τὴν

δὲ τῆς μίξεως αἰτίαν καὶ γενέσεως τετάρτην λέγων dpa μὴ
πλημμελοίην ἄν τι;
HPQ. Kai πῶς;
2Q. Φέρε δή, TO μετὰ τοῦθ᾽ ἡμῖν τίς ὁ λόγος; καὶ τί
ποτε βουληθέντες εἰς ταῦτα ἀφικόμεθα; ἄρ᾽ οὐ τόδε ἣν; δευ-
Ι τερεῖα ἐζητοῦμεν πότερον ἡδονῆς γίγνοιτ᾽ ἂν ἢ φρονήσεως.

have λέγωμεν yap οὗν.

3 ef >.
οὐχ οὕτως ἣν;

ΠΡΩ, Οὕτω μὲν οὖν.

Ἕτερον γὰρ οὖν] The inferior MSS.
Stallbaum, who
is always haunted by a perverse sus-
picion that the older MSS. are full of
grammatical corrections (a fact notori-
ously truer of the recent copies), pre-
fers the latter, and asserts that γὰρ
οὖν is better suited to λέγωμεν than to
ἕτερον. But if λέγωμεν means any-~
thing, it means βούλει λέγωμεν (it could
not be used for λέγειν ἡμῖν ἔξεστι), and
is therefore a proposal; and γὰρ οὖν is
not, and cannot be used in the assent
to a proposal; but in the admission of a
thing proved, nothing is more common.
I have therefore changed the first \éyw-
pev, the cause of all these pseudo-cor-
rections in the later MSS. into λέγομεν.
μὴ πλημμελοίην] The Bodleian
and its two followers have not μή. Bu
as it is easier to account for its
omission in some copies than for its in-

_terpolation in others, there is primd

facie evidence in its favour; and as the
common formula in such questions is to
express hope and not fear (μετρίως or
ἐπιεικῶς ἂν λέγοιμεν, and the like), μὴ
πλημμελεῖν is more suitable than πλημ-
μελεῖν. Stallbaum retains μή, but he
looks upon it as the principal interro-
gative strengthened by dpa, of which he
can cite no example. But an interro-
gative sentence with dpa, and con-
taining μὴ in combination with a noun,
scarcely needs an example. Compare,
however, Phed. 64 0. “Apa μὴ ἄλλο
τι ἢ τὴν THs ψυχῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος
ἀπαλλαγήν. To this Protarchus answers
kal πῶς, which might at first seem a
better answer to πλημμελοίην than μὴ
πλημμελοίην. But so we have καὶ τί;

above, in answer to μῶν μὴ δέοι᾽ ἄν τι;
and we have but to ask ourselves what
ought to be the answer to μὴ πλημμε-
Aoinv ἄν, to be convinced that no other
could be returned,

a
.

Q. ZO, *Ap’ “iy νῦν, ἀρ Pen κ΄ εἰλ

ἂν καὶ τὴν κρίσιν SrirAerahieta: pera ἔρι

περὶ ὧν δὴ τὸ πρῶτον Ἰμφισβητήσαμεν;
ΠΡΩ. Ἴσως.

DQ. Ἴθι δή, νικῶντα μὲν ἔθεμέν που τὸν peer
ἡδονῆς τε Kal φρονήσεως. ἣν οὕτως:
ΠΡῸΣ ἘΝ ἠδ.

LQ. Οὐκοῦν τοῦτον μὲν τὸν βίον ὁρῶμέν που τίς TE ἐσ»!
καὶ ὁποίου γένους; ἌΞΩΝ
ΠΡΩ. Πῶς γὰρ Ὁ) pases ir 2 ay
2Q. Kat μέρος γ᾽ αὐτὸν pare, εἶναι τοῦ 5 τρίτου, οἵραξ Aa
γένους. οὐ γὰρ δυοῖν τινοῖν ἐστὶ μικτὸν ἐκεῖνο, ἀλλὰ cup are ,

των TOV ἀπείρων ὑπὸ τοῦ πέραϊοὶ sideline ὥστ᾽ ὀρθῶς ὁ
νικηφόρος οὗτος βίος μέρος ἐκείνου γίγνοιτ᾽ av.
ΠΡΩ. ᾿Ὀρθότατα μὲν οὖν.
15. DQ. Evev. Tl δ᾽ ὁ σός, ὦ Φίληβε, ἡδὺς καὶ ἄμικτος ὧν,
ἐν τίνι γένει τῶν εἰρημένων λεγόμενος ὀρθῶς ἄν ποτε λέγοιτο;
ὧδε δ᾽ ἀπόκριναί μοι πρὶν ἀποφήνασθαι.

ΦΙ. Λέγε μόνον.

ZQ ἩΗδονὴ καὶ λύπη πέρας ἔχετον, ἢ τῶν τὸ μᾶλλόν TE
καὶ ἧττον δεχομένων ἐστόν; 3

ΦΙ. Nai, τῶν τὸ μάλλον, ὦ Σώκρατες" οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἡδονὴ

πᾶν ἀγαθὸν ἣν, εἰ μὴ ἄπειρον ἐτύγχανε πεφυκὸς καὶ πλήθει
καὶ τῷ μᾶλλον.

ZQ. Οὐδέ γ᾽ ἄν, ὦ Φίληβε, λύπη πᾶν κακόν: ὥστ᾽ ἄλλο
τι νῷν σκεπτέων ἣ τὴν τοῦ ἀπείρου φύσιν, ὃ παρέχεταί τι
μέρος ταῖς ἡδοναῖς ἀγαθοῦ. τοῦτ᾽ οὖν δή σοι τῶν ἀπεράντων ;
γεγονὸς ἔστω. φρόνησιν δὲ καὶ ἐπιστήμην καὶ νοῦν εἰς τί ποτε
τῶν προειρημένων, ὦ ΠΠρώταρχέ τε καὶ Φίληβε, νῦν θέντες οὐκ

μικτὸν ἐκεῖνο] As the whole γένος is
meant, of which the βίος is a part, it is
plain that the common reading, μικτὸς
ἐκεῖνος, is a blunder of the copyist. The
correction was long ago proposed by
Schiitz.

οὐδέ γ᾽ ἂν, ὦ &.] Socrates’ just and
ingenious retort supplies the omission
in Philebus’ answer, and brings us to
the twofold conclusion that pleasure
and pain are in their own nature
without limit, and that this want of a

limit, as it admits pain as well as
pleasure, the supposed evil, as well as
the supposed good, cannot be that in
which the good of pleasure consists, for —
as it is alike the condition of both
opposites, it cannot be either of them to
the exclusion of the other. ;
τοῦτ᾽ οὖν] The MSS. have τούτων,
for which the editors have proposed
τοῦτο; but a connecting particle is
wanted, and will account for ne oa
ruption of the text.

act καὶ ἊΣ περὶ τὸ νῦν. ἐρωτώμενον.
Ὗ Σεμνύνεις γάρ, oO Σώκρατες, τὸν σεαυτοῦ θεόν.
ΣΩ. Καὶ γὰρ σύ, ὦ ἑταῖρε, τὴν σαυτοῦ" τὸ δ᾽ ἐρωτώμε-

πον ἮΝ y λεκτέον.

Οὐκοῦν ὑ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ σύ, Τρώταρχε, poripnoat ssi cial
HPO Πάνυ γε" νῦν μέντοι σχεδὸν a ἀπορῶ, καὶ ϑουμδέ γ᾽"
3 es sore, αὐτόν σε ἡμῖν Ὑφεῦθᾶι προφήτην, ἵνα μηδὲν
ἡμεῖς σοι περὶ τὸν ἀγωνιστὴν ἐξαμαρτάνοντες παρὰ μέλος
1 φθεγξώμεθά τι.

— ΣΏ. Πειστέον, ᾧ Hpdrapxe οὐδὲ γὰρ χαλεπὸν οὐδὲν
ἐπιτάττεις ἀλλ᾽ ὄντως σε eyo, καθάπερ εἶπε Φίληβοὶ A
ἔ γων ἐν τῷ παίζειν ἐθορύβησα, νοῦν καὶ ἐπιστήμην ἐρόμενος
ὁποίου γένους εἶεν;

TPQ. ΠἹΠΠαντάπασί ye, ὦ “Σώκρατες.

ΣΩ. ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν ῥάδιον. πάντες γὰρ Bae aa εν οἱ σοφοὶ,

γ
᾿

᾿

Ε
ἢ
p

. ἑαυτοὺς ὄντως ἐσ εμνυμόντεῖ. ὡς νοῦς ἐστὶ peers ἡμῖν οὐρανοῦ
bs Te καὶ γῆς. καὶ ἴσως εὖ λέγουσι. διὰ μακροτέρων δ᾽, εἰ βούλει,
NM τὴν σκέψιν αὐτοῦ τοῦ γένους ποιησώμεθα.

= ΠΡΩ. Λέγ᾽ ὅπως Boxes μηδὲν μῆκος ἡμῖν ὑπολογιζό-
Mevos, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἁ ὡς οὐκ ἀπεχθησόμενος.

= ΤΌ. ZQ. ΚΚαλῶς εἶπες. ἀρξώμεθα δέ πως ὧδ᾽ ἐπανερω-
τῶντες.

HPQ. - Πὸς:;

A 2Q. Πότερον, ὦ @ Πρώταρχε, τὰ ξύμπαντα καὶ τόδε τὸ
᾿ ξαλούμενον ὅλον ὙΠ ἂν icles hd TOU ena? καὶ εἰκῇ
᾿ δύναμιν καὶ τὸ ὅπη ener. ἢ τἀναντία καθάπερ οἱ πρόσθεν

ἡμῶν ἔλεγον νοῦν καὶ φρόνησίν τινα θαυμαστὴν συντάττουσαν

διακυβερνᾶν;

ς΄ TPQ. οοὐὐδὲν τῶν αὐτῶν, ὦ θαυμάσιε Σώκρατες. ὁ μὲν

᾿ & Φίληβεῖ The accidental omission of | critics in the eleventh century must

these words in the Bodleian, has sup- | have been rare aves.

Stallbaum with another confirma- οὐδὲν τῶν αὐτῶν] I have no doubt

m of his strange theory that the | that these words are corrupt, but I am

ob iter MSS. have undergone the re- | quite unable to guess at any probable
sion of fastidious critics, Fastidious | restoration. I have changed, lower

dv δοξάσαιμι.

ZQ. Βούλει δῆτ᾽ ἔτι καὶ ἡμεῖς τοῖς Pie δι
μενον ξυμφήσωμεν, ἃ ὡς ταῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχει, καὶ μὴ μόνον οἷα ἰώ
δεῖν τἀλλότρια ἄνευ κινδύνου ASKS ἀλλὰ Kat συγκινδυν "Ε
Hey καὶ μετέχωμεν τοῦ Neyer ὅταν ἀνὴρ. δεινὸς φῇ ταῦτα

μὴ οὕτως ἀλλ᾽ ἀτάκτως ἔχουν; ey a4
TPQ. Ids γὰρ οὐκ ἂν βουλοίμην; : oe .
ZQ. "lOc δή, τὸν ἐπιόντα περὶ τούτων νῦν ἡμῖν λόγον,

ἄθρει. ‘

ΠΡΏΩ. λέγε μόνον.

ΣΩ. Τὰ περὶ τὴν τῶν σωμάτων φύσιν ἁπάντων τῶν Soe
πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ πνεῦμα, καθορῶμέν που, καὶ γῆν, καθάπερ οἱ
χειμαζόμενοί φασιν, ἐνόντα ἐν τῇ συστάσει.

ΠΡΩ. Kai μάλα’ χειμαζόμεθα γὰρ ὄντως ὑπ᾽ ἀπορίας ἐν

τοῖς νῦν λόγοις.

ΣΩ. Φέρε δή, περὶ ἑκάστου τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ας, τὸ.

τοιόνδε.

ΠΡΩ. 1Ποῖον;

4“ ’ , 4 9 et oa 4
ZQ. Ὅτι σμικρόν τε τούτων ἕκαστον παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἕνεστι
4 A κ᾿ "3 A Ay A Ἂ ΠῚ \ 4 δὲ "ἪΝ
Και φαῦλον και OU apy OVOAMWS El LK PLVES OV KQ@t THY υναμιν
’ 2 , wn , BA ° εν δὲ A A , ’;
οὐκ ἀξίαν τῆς φύσεως ἔχον. EV ἐνὶ OE λαβὼν περί πάντων νόει.
id @ a ‘ »»» Φ δ΄ Ὁ 4 >. 29 an ,
ταὐτόν. οἷον πυρ MEV ἐστι TOU Tap μιν. ἐστι ὃ εν τῷ TaVTl.

WPQ. Ti un;

ZQ. Οὐκοῦν σμικρὸν μέν τι τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν καὶ ἀσθενὲς καὶ
φαῦλον, τὸ δ᾽ ἐν τῷ παντὶ πλήθει τε θαυμαστὸν καὶ κάλλει,
καὶ πάσῃ δυνάμει τῇ περὶ τὸ πῦρ οὔση.

ΠΡΩ. ΚΚαὶ μάλα ἀληθὲς 0 λέγεις.

2Q. Ti δέ; τρέφεται καὶ γίγνεται ἐκ τούτου καὶ ἄρχεται,

down, λέγεις into ἔλεγες, which is neces-
sary for the sense.

βούλει δῆτ᾽ ἔτι Kal ἡμεῖς] Do you
wish, then, that we also should agree in
afirming that which is professed by
the ancients before mentioned? I have

καὶ ἡλίου καὶ se ag καὶ ἀστέρων | καὶ | πάσης
aii καὶ οὐκ ἄλλως ἔγωγ᾽ ἄν ποτε περὶ αὐτῶν. εἴπ

᾿

2

7

changed δῆτά τι into δῆτ᾽ ἔτι; τε: which
the inferior MSS. omit, is quite foreign
to the sentence, while ἔτι καὶ in - hed
sense are of continual occurrence in
Plato and other writers. sverhiataia
κινδύνου is evidently a proverbial phi

ae | oe ΠΝ 2 eee 5“

-TIAATONOS ΦΙΛΗΒΟΣ. 3

τοῦ παντὸς πῦρ ὑπὸ τοῦ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν πυρός, ἢ τοὐναντίον ὑπ᾽
υ τό τ᾽ ἐμὸν καὶ τὸ σὸν καὶ τὸ τῶν ἄλλων ζώων ἅπαντ᾽
ἴσχει ταῦτα;
— ΠΡΏΩ. Τοῦτο μὲν οὐδ᾽ ἀποκρίσεως ἄξιον ἐρωτᾷς.
—2Q, Ὀρθῶς: ταὐτὰ γὰρ ἐρεῖς, οἶμαι, περί τε τῆς ἐν τοῖς
ζώοις γῆς τῆς ἐνθάδε καὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ παντί, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων δὴ
πάντων ὕσων ἠρώτησα ὀλίγον ἔμπροσθεν, οὕτως ἀποκρινεῖ.
ΠΡΩ. Τίς γὰρ ἀποκρινόμενος ἄλλως ὑγιαίνων ἄν ποτε
φανείη;
ΣΩ. Σχεδὸν οὐδ᾽ ὁστισοῦν. ἀλλὰ τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο ἑξῆς
ἕπου. πάντα γὰρ ἡμεῖς ταῦτα τὰ νῦν δὴ λεχθέντα dp’ οὐκ εἰς
ἕν συγκείμενα ἰδόντες ἐπωνομάσαμεν σῶμα;
HPQ. Τί μήν;
ZQ. Tavrov δὴ λαβὲ καὶ περὶ τοῦδε ὃν κόσμον λέγομεν.
διὰ τὸν αὐτὸν γὰρ τρόπον ἂν εἴη που σῶμα, σύνθετον ὃν ἐκ
᾿ τῶν αὐτῶν.
ΠΡΩ. "OpOerara λέγεις.

Σῷ. Πότερον οὖν ἐκ τούτου τοῦ σώματος ὅλως τὸ παρ᾽

᾿ ἡμῖν σῶμα ἣ ἐκ τοῦ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν τοῦτο τρέφεταί τε καὶ ὅσα νῦν
| a: 4 eee ” x , ,» ,
᾿ δὴ περὶ αὐτῶν εἴπομεν, εἴληφέ TE καὶ ἴσχει 5
IIPQ. ΚΚαὶ τοῦθ᾽ ἕτερον, ὦ Σώκρατες, οὐκ ἄξιον ἐρωτή-
{| ᾿
| Tews.
i? ZQ. Ti δέ; τόδ᾽ ap’ ἄξιον 5 ἢ πῶς ἐρεῖς ;
| | ITPQ. Λέγε τὸ ποῖον.

πῶ... Τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σῶμα ἄρ᾽ οὐ ψυχὴν φήσομεν ἔχειν ;
| TIPQ. δῆλον ὅτι φήσομεν.
DQ. Πόθεν, ὦ φίλε Updrapye, λαβόν, εἴπερ μὴ τό γε
| βσταρχ ; Ὁ

“ 4 A ἴω x) « 9 ,
τοῦ παντὸς σῶμα ἔμψυχον ὃν ἐτύγχανε, ταὐτὰ γ᾽ ἔχον τούτῳ
᾿ καὶ ἔτι πάντη καλλίονα 5
᾿ς ΠΡΩ. δῆλον ὡς οὐδαμόθεν ἄλλοθεν, ὦ Σώκρατες.
τς 2Q. Οὐ γάρ που δοκοῦμέν γε, ὦ Πρώταρχε. τὰ τέτταρα
yap μεν Ὕ βτοαρχ β

π ν Φ 0 A \ A 4 A °F , 5
€KELVA, Tepas Kal απειβρον καὶ KOLVOV Καί TO τῆς ALTLAS yevos, εν

ἅπαντ᾽ ἴσχει ταῦτα] Thatis, nurture, | kind, as implied in the other three, be-
and generation, and origin. comes the principal subject of all that
οὐ γάρ που Soxodpey. ye] The diffi- | follows. τῶν αὐτῶν τούτων are the same

culty of this sentence will be much | four kinds which again become the sub-
1 sened if we attend to the words ἐν ject of μεμηχανῆσθαι. ἐν τούτοις, in the
ἅπασι τέταρτον ἐνόν, by which the fourth | heaven and us parts.

3

94 ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ ®IAHBOS.

ἅπασι τέταρτον ἐνόν, τοῦτο ἐν μὲν τοῖς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ψυχήντε παρέ-
χον καὶ σωμασκίαν ἐμποιοῦν καὶ πταίσαντος σώματος ἰατρικὴν
καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις ἄλλα συντιθὲν καὶ ἀκούμενον πᾶσαν καὶ παντοίαν
σοφίαν ἐπικαλεῖσθαι, τῶν δ᾽ αὐτῶν τούτων ὄντων ἐν ὅλῳ τε

9 4 4 A , , A , XO : Α ἿᾺ
ουρᾶανῷ Kat Κατα μεγάλα MEP), KQL προσετι καλῶν καὶι εἰ ἰκρι-

“ ὡς ~ ty ΄“- - , ,
χῶν, ἐν τούτοις δ᾽ οὐκ ἄρα piri» THY τῶν καλλίστων.

καὶ τιμιωτάτων φύσιν.
IIPQ.
ZQ. Οὐκοῦν εἰ μὴ τοῦτο. μετ᾽ ἐκείνου τοῦ ante ἂν ἐπό-
μενοι βέλπτων; λέγοιμεν, ὡς ἔστιν, ἃ πόλλάκις τἰρλκξαμάν ἄπει-
ρόν τ᾽

᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐδαμῶς τοῦτό γ᾽ ἂν λόγον € ἔχοι.

αὐτοῖς αἰτία οὐ φαύλη, κοσμοῦσά τε καὶ συντάττουσα ἐνιαυ-
τούς τε καὶ ὥρας καὶ μῆνας, σοφία καὶ νοῦς λεγομένη δικαιό-
τατ᾽ ἄν.

TPQ. δδιιαιότατα δῆτα. er

ZQ. Σοφία μὴν καὶ νοῦς ἄνευ ψυχῆς οὐκ ἄν ποτε
γενοίσθην.

ΠΡΩ. Οὐ γὰρ οὗν.

ZQ. Οὐκοῦν ἐν μὲν τῇ τοῦ Διὸς ἐρεῖς φύσει βασιλικὴν
μὲν ψυχήν, βασιλικὸν δὲ νοῦν ἐγγίγνεσθαι διὰ τὴν τῆς αἰτίας
δύναμιν, ἐν δὲ ἄλλοις ἄλλα καλά, καθ᾽ ὃ φίλον ἑκάστοις
λέγεσθαι.

ΠΡΩ. Manda γε.

Σῷ. Τοῦτον δὴ τὸν λόγον ἡμᾶς μή τι μάτην δόξης, ὦ
ΠΠρώταρχε, εἰρηκέναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι τοῖς μὲν πάλαι ἀποφηναμένοις
ὡς ἀεὶ τοῦ παντὸς νοῦς ἄρχει ξύμμαχος ἐκείνοις.

ΠΡΩ. Ἔστι γὰρ οὖν.

2Q. Τῇ δέ γ᾽ ἐμῆ ζητήσει πεπορικὼς ἀπόκρισιν, ὅτι νοῦς
ἐστὶ γενούστης τοῦ πάντων αἰτίου λεχθέντος. τῶν τεττάρων
δ᾽ ἣν ἡμῖν ἕν τοῦτο. ἔχεις γὰρ δήπου νῦν ἡμῶν ἤδη τὴν ἀπόκρισιν.

IITPQ.
ἔλαθες.

ἜΣ οι 4% e te. , “ U
X® καὶ μα ἐκανῶς" καὶ TOL με ἀποκρινάμενος

γενούστης is nowhere found but in

ἐν τῷ παντὶ πολὺ Kat πέρας ἱκανόν, καί τις ἐπ᾽

this passage and in the lexicographers
who met with it here. I have little
doubt but that it is corrupt, and arose
from γένους being added as an cxPiany,
tion of ‘yertyras.

τῶν τεττάρων δ᾽ ἦν] I have adopted
Stallbaum’s. undoubted correction of
τῶν τεττάρων᾽ ἣν ἡμῖν ἕν τοῦτο. The in-
ferior MSS. have ὧν before ἣν, ἃ mani-
fest interpolation for the sake of the
sense,

bate Pheer γάρ, ὧ Πρώταρχε, τῆς σπουδῆς esa
ἐνίοτε ἡ παιδιά.

— ΠΡΩ. ΚΚαλῶς εἶπες. |

Me DQ. Νῦν δὴ νοῦς, ὦ ἑταῖρε; οὗ μὲν γένους ἐστὶ καὶ τίνα
P γτὲ δύναμιν κέκτηται; σ' Amaia ἐπιεικῶς ἡμῖν τὰ νῦν δεδήλωται.
Ο TIPQ. = Ilavw μὲν οὖν. |

—2Q. Kai μὴν ἡδονῆς γ᾽ ὡσαύτως πάλαι τὸ γένος ἐφάνη.
TIPQ. Kai μάλα.

EA , 9 8 εὖ fal , ° \ , , , 9
ἄπειρός T αὐτὴ καὶ τοῦ μήτε ἀρχὴν μήτε μέσα μήτε τέλος ἐν
oe ὅν, | Φ. «ε “a +S r 4 Φ , ,
ἑαυτῷ ad ἑαυτοῦ ἔχοντος μηδ᾽ ἕξοντός ποτε γένους.
ΠΡΩ. Μεμνησόμεθα: πῶς γὰρ οὔ :.
a A A A “A 9 a ᾿ς ὅς; ει 4 a

ZQ. Aci δὴ τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο; ἐν OT ἐστιν ἑκάτερον αὐτοῖν

Α ὃ ‘ , , ’ θ ε , ’ a) ‘a A ea
᾿ καὶ διὰ τί πάθος . γίγνεσθον, ὁπόταν γίγνησθον, ἰδεῖν ἡμᾶς"
} ~ 4 e ΒΕ Φ ‘ , | κε , > U
᾿ πρῶτον ἮΝ ἡδονήν ὥσπερ, TO γι αὐτῆς i i 5 pect
i “» ᾿] 9
᾿ς σαμεν, οὕτω καὶ ταῦτα πρότερα. λύπης δ᾽ αὖ χωρὶς τὴν ἦδο-
aa Q > x ’ > ¢ A ’
| γὴν οὐκ ἄν ποτε δυναίμεθ᾽ ἱκανῶς βασανίσαι.
a ᾿
i TIPQ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ ταύτη χρὴ πορεύεσθαι, ταύτη πορευ-
Π-
εἰ ὦμεθα.
ΣΩ. ΚΑρ᾽ οὖν σοὶ καθάπερ ἐμοὶ φαίνεται τῆς γενέσεως
; αὐτῶν πέρι;
: ΠΡΩ. To ποῖον ;

ΣΩ. Ἔν τῷ κοινῷ μοι γένει ἅμα φαίνεσθον λύπη τε καὶ

᾿ ἡδονὴ γίγνεσθαι κατὰ φύσιν.

| ᾿ ΠΡΩ. ΚΚοινὸν δέ γ᾽, ὦ φίλε Σώκρατες, ὑπομίμνησκε
᾿ ἡμᾶς τί ποτε τῶν προειρημένων βούλει δηλοῦν.

ἱ ΣΩ. Ἔσται ταῦτ᾽ εἰς δύναμιν, ὦ θαυμάσιε.

ΠΡΩ. ΚΚαλῶς εἶπες.

γ DQ. ΚΚοινὸν τοίνυν ὑπακούωμεν ὃ δὴ τῶν τεττάρων τρίτον
] ἐλέγομεν.

|
|
|
|
| ae. f > δὲ Ψ ὁ ’ 9 10 δ
᾿ VYLELAV, οἰμαι OE και αρμονιὰν. ETLUETO 9
|
ταῦτα πρότερα] Namely, where it is | to the class of ἄπειρα, but as having
| to be found taining, and how it arises. | come into being, and consequently as
ln 4 Henceforth, pleasure is no longer con- | belonging to the κοινά,
sidered as an abstraction, and belonging

3—2

QNOS SIAHBOS. 35.

ΟΣΩ, Μεμνώμεθα δὴ καὶ ταῦτα περὶ ἀμφοῖν, ὅ ὅτι νοῦς μὲν.
αἰτίας ἣν ξυγγενὴς καὶ τούτου σχεδὸν τοῦ γένους, ἡδονὴ δ᾽

— ΠΡΩ. O μετὰ τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ πέρας ἔλεγες ; ἐν ᾧ καὶ
μ ρ ρ μὰ ͵

= + ee

36 ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ SIAHBOS.

ΣΏΩ. Kaddtor’ εἶπες. τὸν νοῦν δὲ ὅ τι “μάλιστ᾽ ἤδη,
πρόσεχε. ἷ ΤῊΝ \

ΠΡΩ. Λέγε μόναι ι

ZQ. λέγω τοίνυν τῆς ἁρμονίας μὲν λυομένης ἡμῖν ἐν τοῖς

, a , A , 4A , ° oo 9 a ,
ζώοις ἅμα λύσιν τῆς φύσεως καὶ γένεσιν ἀλγηδόνων ἐν τῷ τότε
γίγνεσθαι χρόνῳ.

ΠΡΩ. Πάνυ λέγεις εἰκός.

Σ(). Τ]άλιν δ᾽ ἁρμοττομένης τε καὶ εἰς τὴν αὑτῆς φύσιν
ἀπιούσης ἡδονὴν γίγνεσθαι λεκτέον, εἰ δεῖ δι᾿ ὀλίγων περὶ μεγί-
στων ὅ τι τάχιστα ῥηθῆναι.

TPQ. Otuat μέν σε ὀρθῶς λέγειν, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἐμφανέ-
στερον δὲ ἔτι ταὐτὰ ταῦτα πειρώμεθα λέγειν.

ZQ. Οὐκοῦν τὰ δημόσια που καὶ περιφανῆ ῥᾷστον συν-
γοεῖν §

TPQ. Ilota;

ΣΙ. Πείνη μέν που λύσις καὶ λύπη:

ΠΡΩ. Nai. |

DQ. °Edwdy δέ, πλήρωσις γιγνομένη πάλιν, ἡδονή:

TIPQ. Nai.

=Q. Δίψος δ᾽ αὖ φθορὰ καὶ λύπη [ καὶ λύσις], ἡ δὲ τοῦ
ς A , ‘ A “ , ς , ,
ὑγροῦ πάλιν τὸ ξηρανθὲν πληροῦσα δύναμις ἡδονή. διάκρισις
δέ γ᾽ αὖ καὶ διάλυσις ἡ παρὰ φύσιν, τοῦ πνίγους πάθη, λύπη;
κατὰ φύσιν δ᾽ ἡ πάλιν ἀπόδοσίς τε καὶ ψύξις ἡδονή.

TPQ. ITavw μὲν οὗν.

2Q. Kat ῥίγους ἡ μὲν παρὰ φύσιν τοῦ ζώου τῆς ὑγρότη-

“-. , , > 9 9 ‘ 9 , A
Tos πῆξις λύπη. πάλιν δ᾽ εἰς ταὐτὸν ἀπιόντων Kal διακρινο-
, e 4 , ς 3 e , 4 e 4 , , +
μένων ἡ κατὰ φύσιν ὁδὸς ἡδονή. καὶ ἑνὶ λόγῳ σκόπει εἴ σοὶ
μέτριος ὁ λόγος, ὃς ἄν φῇ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπείρου καὶ πέρατος
Ν , + b) 3 4 ΕΝ 3 a ,
κατὰ φύσιν ἔμψυχον γεγονὸς εἶδος, ὅπερ ἔλεγον ἐν τῷ πρό-
ef \ a , ι ι ᾿ , 3
σθεν, ὅταν μὲν τοῦτο φθείρηται, τὴν μὲν φθοραν λύπην εἶναι,
A 9 ᾿] Α ae. Ὧν εὰ», , ? 4 , A 4
τὴν δ᾽ εἰς τὴν αὑτῶν οὐσίαν ὁδόν, ταύτην δ᾽ αὖ πάλιν τὴν ἀνα-
χώρησιν πάντων ἡδονήν.

HPQ. Ἔστω: δοκεῖ γάρ μοι τύπον γέ τιν᾽ ἔχειν.

ZQ. Τοῦτο μὲν τοίνυν ἕν εἶδος τιθώμεθα λύπης τε καὶ
ἡδονῆς ἐν τούτοις τοῖς πάθεσιν é ἑκατέροις ;

ΠΡΩ. ΚΚείσθω.

TIAATONO> ΦΙΛΗΒΟΣ. 37

- ΟΣΏΩ, Τίθει τοίνυν αὐτῆς τῆς ψυχῆς κατὰ τὸ τούτων τῶν
παθημάτων προσδόκημα τὸ μὲν πρὸ τῶν ἡδέων ἐλπιζόμενον
ἡδὺ καὶ θαῤῥαλέον, τὸ δὲ πρὸ τῶν λυπηρῶν φοβερὸν καὶ
ἀλγεινόν.
By: IPQ. Ἔστι yap οὖν τοῦθ᾽ ἡδονῆς Kat λύπης ἕτερον
εἶδος, τὸ χωρὶς τοῦ σώματος αὐτῆς τῆς ψυχῆς διὰ προσδοκίας
γιγνόμενον.
2Q. ᾿Ορθῶς ὑπέλαβες. ἐν γὰρ τούτοις οἶμαι, κατά γε
τὴν ἐμὴν δόξαν, εἰλικρινέσ: τε ἑκατέροις γιγνομένοις, ὡς δοκεῖ,
καὶ ἀμίκτοις λύπης τε καὶ ἡδονῆς, ἐμφανὲς ἔσεσθαι τὸ περὶ
τὴν ἡδονήν, πότερον ὅλον ἐστὶ τὸ γένος ἀσπαστόν, ἢ τοῦτο
μὲν ἑτέρῳ τῶν προειρημένων δοτέον ἡμῖν γενῶν, ἡδονὴ δὲ καὶ
λύπη, καθάπερ θερμῷ καὶ ψυχρῷ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς τοιούτοις, τοτὲ
᾿ς μὲν ἀσπαστέον αὐτά, τοτὲ δὲ οὐκ ἀσπαστέον, ὡς ἀγαθὰ μὲν
οὐκ ὄντα, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ ἔνια δεχόμενα τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἔστιν
᾿ς ὅτε φύσιν.

Ἃ ΠΡΩ. ᾿Ορθότατα λέγεις ὅτι ταύτη πη δεῖ διαπορευθῆναι
᾿ τὸ νῦν μεταδιωκόμενον.
ἡ 2Q. II parov μὲν τοίνυν τόδε ξυνίδωμεν, ὡς εἴπερ ὄντως

A “A

ἔστι TO λεγόμενον, διαφθειρομένων μὲν αὐτῶν ἀλγηδών, avacw-
, A ¢ , “ , , , 93 ° ,
| ζομένων δὲ ἡδονή, τῶν μήτε διαφθειρομένων μήτ ἀνασωζομέ-

> , ’ ’ , ὦ ΨΥ oe 8 OP 3
νων ἐννοήσωμεν πέρι; τίνα ποθ᾽ ἕξιν δεῖ τότ᾽ ἐν ἑκάστοις εἶναι
a , “ eo ” "δ δὲ ’ A lal
τοῖς ζώοις, ὅταν οὕτως ἴσχη. σφόδρα δὲ προσέχων τὸν νοῦν

ΒΕ ἢ a? 5) “ . ὅκα a 9 las , , A
εἰπε ἀρ οὐ πᾶσα avayKy παν ev τῷ τότε χρονῳ ζῶον μήτε

τι λυπεῖσθαι μήθ᾽ ἥδεσθαι, μήτε μέγα μήτε σμικρόν ;

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Ανάγκη μὲν οὖν.

οἶμαι, κατά γε τὴν ἐμὴν δόξαν] The
second of these phrases modifies the
confident air of the first; there is there-
fore no redundancy, such as some have
imagined to be purposely introduced
to imitate ordinary conversation! ὡς
δοκεῖ belongs merely to the words im-
mediately before it, for he cannot be
sure that they are pure till he looks into
them further. Itis commonly supposed
that Socrates is here speaking of the
προσδοκήματα alone; but it is strange
that he should speak of these as pure,
and unmingled with pleasure and pain,
just after he has made them appear as
one kind of them. Nor is it easy to

see why he should lay so much stress
on this particular kind, as expecting
from it a solution of the whole question.
It seems, therefore, more convenient to
take ἑκατέροις as both pleasures and
both pains, and to understand by ἀμί-
κτοις λυπῆς τε Kal ἡδονῆς, pleaswre un-
mixed with pain, and pain with plea-
sure.

ἔστιν ὅτε] Perhaps ἔστιν of. On the
confusion of T and T, see my note on
Iph. Tawr. 385.

διαπορευθῆναι)ῦὨ[, The argument is
compared, as in many other parts of
Plato, to a beast of the chase being
tracked.

38 TIAATQNOZ ΦΙΛΗ

ἡμῶν ἡ τοιαύτη διά-

TQ. Οὐκοῦν ἔστι τις τρίτη
θεσις παρά τε τὴν τοῦ χαίροντος καὶ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ λυπου-
μένου; | ewer
TPQ. Ti μήν;
DQ. "Aye δὴ τοίνυν, ταύτης προθυμοῦ ndevjodee πρὸς

γὰρ τὴν τῆς ἡδονῆς κρίσιν οὐ σμικρὸν μεμνῆσθαι ταύτης
ἔσθ᾽ ἡμῖν ἢ μή. βραχὺ δέ τι περὶ αὐτῆς, εἰ βούλει, διαπερά-
νωμεν.᾿
ΠΡΩ. Λέγε ποῖον.
ZQ. Τῷ τὸν τοῦ φρονεῖν ἑλομένῳ βίον οἶσθ᾽ ὡς τοῦτον
‘ , 8" 9 - κ᾿
τὸν τρόπον οὐδὲν ἀποκωλύει ζῆν.
ΠΡΩ. Tov τοῦ μὴ χαίρειν μηδὲ λυπεῖσθαι λέγεις 5
ΣΩΏ. Ἔῤῥήθη γάρ που τότ᾽ ἐν τῇ παραβολῇ τῶν βίων
μηδὲν δεῖν μήτε μέγα μήτε σμικρὸν χαίρειν τῷ τὸν τοῦ νοεῖν
4 a , ε ’
καὶ φρονεῖν βίον ἑλομένῳ.
TIPQ. Kat μάλα οὕτως ἐῤῥήθη.
SQ. Οὐκοῦν οὗτος ἂν ἐκείνῳ γ᾽ ὑπάργχοι, καὶ ἴσως οὐδὲν
PNY PX
ἄτοπον εἰ πάντων τῶν βίων ἐστὶ θειότατος.
TIPQ. Οὔκουν εἰκός γ᾽ οὔτε χαίρειν τοὺς θεοὺς οὔτε τὸ
ἐναντίον.
2Q. lav μὲν οὖν οὐκ εἰκός: ἄσχημον γοῦν αὐτῶν ἑκάτε-
, , 9 9 A A ~ A aS 4 " ΄
pov γιγνόμενον ἐστιν. ἀλλὰ δὴ τοῦτο μὲν ἔτι καὶ εἰσαῦθις
ἢ ’ 9A A ’ > 4 an ἮΝ \ N ᾿
ἐπισκεψόμεθα, ἐὰν πρὸς λόγον τι ἣ, καὶ τῷ νῷ πρὸς τὰ
δευτερεῖα, ἐὰν μὴ πρὸς τὰ πρωτεῖα δυνώμεθα προσθεῖναι,
προσθήσομεν.
ΤΡΟ,
ΣΩ. Kat μὴν τό ἕτερον εἶδος τῶν “Wovar, § ὃ τῆς
μ γ᾽ ἕτερ

ψυχῆς αὐτῆς ἔφαμεν εἶναι, διὰ μνήμης πᾶν ἐστὶ γεγονός. i

᾿Ορθότατα is

ταύτης] All the MSS. but one have
ταύτην, which is either a corruption,

but to τῶν βίων θειότατος, which follows.
I have therefore removed the colon

or shows that the second μεμνῆσθαι is
such,

οὗτος ἂν ἐκείνῳ γ᾽ ὑπάρχοι] This is

the reading of the Vienna MSS., and is.

preferable to ovrws, for if the reference
had been to μηδὲν χαίρειν, he would
have said τοῦτο. οὗτος does not refer
to the preceding βίον, nor to τρόπον,

after ὑπάρχοι.

ἐπισκεψόμεθα] This is Bekker’s con-
jecture for ἐπισκεψώμεθα, which occurs
in all the books, but is both less suit-
able in itself, unusual with εἰσαῦθις,
which requires a future, and quite in-
compatible with προσθήσομεν.

en

TIAATONOS ΦΙΔΗΒΟΣ. 39

j =Q. Μνήμην, ἁ ὡς ἔοικεν, ὅ τί ποτ᾽ ἔστι, πρότερον ἀνα-
ληπτέον. καὶ κινδυνεύει. πάλιν ἔτι mpeg αἴσθησιν μνήμης,
εἰ μέλλει τὰ is ταῦθ᾽ ἡμῖν κατὰ τρόπον φανερά πῃ γενή-
τ σεσθαι.

ΠΡΩ. Πῶς ois: ἢ

ΣΩ. Oe τῶν περὶ τὸ σῶμα ἡμῶν ἑκάστοτε παθημάτων
τὰ μὲν ἐν τῷ σώματι κατασβεννύμενα πρὶν ἐπὶ τὴν ψυχὴν
διεξελθεῖν, ἀπαθῆ ἐκείνην ἐάσαντα, τὰ δὲ δι᾽ ἀμφοῖν
ἰόντα καί τινα ὥσπερ σεισμὸν ἐντιθέντα ἴδιόν τε καὶ κοινὸν
ἑκατέρῳ.

ΠΡΩ. ΚΚείσθω.

4), ἀμφοῖν ἰόντα ἐὰν τὴν ψυχὴν
ἡμῶν φῶμεν λανθάνειν, τὰ δὲ δι᾽ ἀμφοῖν μὴ λανθάνειν, ap’

Τὰ μὲν δὴ μὴ δι᾽

ὀρθότατα ἐροῦμεν 5
TIPQ.
ZQ. To τοίνυν λεληθέναι μηδαμῶς ὑπολάβης ὡς λέγω

λήθης ἐνταῦθά που γένεσιν. ἔστι γὰρ λήθη μνήμης ἔξοδος" ἡ

δ᾽ ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ νῦν οὔπω γέγονε: τοῦ δὴ μήτε ὄντος μήτε

γεγονότος πω γίγνεσθαι φάναι τινὰ ἀποβολὴν ἄτοπον. ἣ

Πῶς γὰρ ov ;

γάρ:
HPQ. Ti μήν;

2Q. Ta τοίνυν ὀνόματα μετάβαλε μόνον.

ΠΡΩ. Πῶς:

2Q. ᾿Αντὶ μὲν τοῦ λεληθέναι τὴν ψυχήν, ὅταν ἀπαθὴς
αὕτη γίγνηται τῶν σεισμῶν τῶν τοῦ σώματος, ἣν νῦν λήθην

a 9 , 93 ’
καλεῖς, ἀναισθησίαν ἐπονόμασον.

ἀναληπτέον] The word is unusual in
the sense here required; but perhaps
Stallbaum’s observation is sufficient for
its defence; that he is playing on the
word μνήμη, to which ἀναλαμβάνειν
properly belongs in its sense of re-
hearsing or recollecting.

ἐνταῦθά που] Somewhere here,—i.e.,
in the state we have been describing.
By λήθης γένεσις is meant a state of
forgetfulness arising out of a previous
opposite state. With this he contrasts that
state of unconsciousness as to any parti-
cular impression which precedes αἴσθη-
ows, and consequently μνήμη. The latter
is described in order to bring into greater

relief the proposition which he is now
advancing, that desire being of the
opposite to that which is present, as
the body is taken up with that which is
present, the mind alone can be con-
versant with the absent opposite, and
this through memory, without which
desire is impossible.

μήτε γεγονότος mw] I have adopted
Stallbaum’s conjecture for πὼς without
hesitation.

ἣν viv λήθην καλεῖς] Protarchus
had not used the word, but he had
assented to Socrates in his use of λελη-
θέναι; now there is no objection to
λεληθέναι, except that it suggests λήθη;

poy IAATQNOS GIAHBOS.
TIPQ. ἽἜμαθον.

ΣΩ, Τὸ δ᾽ ἐν et πάθει τὴν Lovbes Kat TO σῶμα κοινῇ :

γιγνόμενον κοινῇ καὶ κινεῖσθαι, ταύτην δ᾽ αὖ τὴν κίνησιν ὀνο-
9 ? 3 , , 4
μάζων αἴσθησιν οὐκ aro τρόπου φθέγγοι᾽ ἂν.

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αληθέστατα λέγεις.

DQ. Οὐκοῦν ἤδη μανθάνομεν ὃ βουλόμεθα καλεῖν τὴν

αἴσθησιν 3

TPQ. Ti py;

2Q. ΣΣωτηρίαν τοίνυν αἰσθήσεως τὴν μνήμην λέγων ὀρθῶς
ἄν τις λέγοι κατά γε τὴν ἐμὴν δόξαν.

ITPQ. ᾿Ορθῶς γὰρ οὖν.

XQ. Μνήμης δὲ ἀνάμνησιν ὃ μ᾿ οὐ διαφέρουσαν λέγομεν;

ΠΡΩ. Ἴσως.

ΣΏ. “Δρ᾽ οὖν οὗ τόδε ;

TPQ. To ποῖον:

DQ. Ὅταν α μετὰ τοῦ σώματος ἔπασχέ ποθ᾽ ἡ ψυχή,

ral 9 4 A , 9 Α Ψ e ~ ow 7 9
ταῦτ᾽ ἄνευ τοῦ σώματος αὐτὴ ἐν ἑαυτῇ ὃ τι μάλιστα ἀναλαμ-
a ’
Bavy, τότε ἀναμιμνήσκεσθαί που λέγομεν. ἢ γάρ:
ΠΡΩ. Lav μὲν οὖν.
DQ. Καὶ μὴν καὶ ὅταν ἀπολέσασα μνήμην εἴτε αἰσθή-
ἣν. .-6 oO) , > , ? ’ , 7 A
σεως εἴτ᾽ αὖ μαθήματος αὖθις ταύτην ἀναπολήσῃ παλιν αὐτή
ἐν ἑαυτῆ, καὶ ταῦτα ξύμπαντα ἀναμνήσεις καὶ μνήμας που
λέγομεν.
ΠΡΩ. Ὀρθῶς λέγεις.
DQ. Οὗ δὴ χάριν ἅπαντ᾽ εἴρηται ταῦτα: ἔστι τόδε.
TIPQ. To ποῖον:
ZQ. “Iva δὴ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡδονὴν χωρὶς σώματος ὅ τι
, 4 9 , , A ¢ 9 ’ ὃ A
μάλιστα καὶ ἐναργέστατα λάβοιμεν, καὶ ἅμα ἐπιθυμίαν" διὰ
γὰρ τούτων πως ταῦτα ἀμφότερα ἔοικε δηλοῦσθαι.
> 4 rot
TIPQ. λέγωμεν τοΐνυν, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἤδη TO μετὰ ταῦτα.

but as the distinction would have taken | adds to the clearness of the sentence,

time, and not been to the purpose, he
supposes, for brevity’s sake, that the
one word is implied in the other, and

therefore rejects both, and adopts dvac-

σθησία.

ποθ᾽ i] The Zurich editors have not
improved this passage by the conjec-
tural reading of πάθη; the word ποτὲ

and is fully supported by analogous
passages in this part of the dialogue. -

ἵνα δή] The MSS. have wa μή, for
which some have proposed ἕνα πη, which
would be more appropriate if the descrip-
tion was of something they were in-
tending to do, and not of what had
already been accomplished.

i es ἃ ee

Πολλά ye περὶ γένεσιν ἡδονῆς καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν μορ-
ῥὴν αὐτῆς ἀναγκαῖον, ὡς ἔοικε, λέγοντας σκοπεῖν. καὶ yap νῦν
π 00° ‘€00 ν ἔτι φαίνεται ληπτέον ἐπιθυμίαν εἶναι, τί ποτ᾽ ἔστι
καὶ ποῦ γίγνεται.

TIPQ. Σκοπῶμεν τοίνυν: οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀπολοῦμεν.

DQ. ᾿Απολοῦμεν μὲν οὖν, ταῦτά γογῶ Τρώταρχε, εὑρόν-
τες ἃ νῦν ζητοῦμεν | ἀπολοῦμεν] τὴν περὶ αὐτὰ ταῦτα
ἀπορίαν.

| ΠΡΩ. Ὀρθῶς ἠμύνω: τὸ δ᾽ ἐφεξῆς τούτοις πειρώμεθα

λέγειν.

ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν νῦν δὴ πείνην τε καὶ δίψος καὶ πόλλ᾽ ἕτερα
τοιαῦτα ἔφαμεν εἶναί τινας ἐπιθυμίας ;

ΠΡώ. Σφόδρα γε.

ZQ. Πρὸς τί ποτε ἄρα ταὐτὸν βλέψαντες οὕτω πολὺ
διαφέροντα ταῦθ᾽ ἑνὶ προσαγορεύομεν ὀνόματι 5

IPQ. Μὰ A? οὐ ῥᾷδιον ἴσως εἰπεῖν, ὦ Σώκρατες: ἀλλ᾽

e ,
ὅμως λεκτέον.

DQ. Ἐκεῖθεν δὴ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν πάλιν ἀναλάβωμεν.

TPQ. [oder δή:

Σ΄. Διψῆν που λέγομεν ἑκάστοτέ Th

IIPQ. [Πῶς δ᾽ ov;

2Q. Τοῦτο δέ γ᾽ ἐστὶ κενοῦσθαι ;

HPQ. Ti μήν;

ZQ. *Ap’ οὖν τὸ δίψος ἐστὶν ἐπιθυμία 5

HPQ. Nai, πώματός γε.

ZQ. Πώματος, ἢ πληρώσεως πώματος 3

TPQ. Ofua μὲν πληρώσεως.

ZQ. ‘O κενούμενος ἡμῶν apa, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἐπιθυμεῖ τῶν

> , aA , , 4 , σ- an
EVAVTLWOY ἢ πάσχει. KEVOUMEVOS γὰρ Epa πληροῦσθαι.

᾿ ἃ νῦν ζητοῦμεν] The common reading
is, ἀπολοῦμεν μὲν οὖν, καὶ ταῦτά γε, ὦ
Il. ., εὑρόντες ὃ νῦν ζητοῦμεν" ἀπολοῦμεν
κι €. It is impossible to make any
sense of καὶ ταῦτά γε, nor is the first
ἀπολοῦμεν without a case supported by
good examples. The corruption of the
passage appears to have originated

- with the insertion of the second ἀπο-

λοῦμεν, which probably stood at first as
a gloss in the margin.

Διψῆν] The inferior MSS. have διψῃ
mov, the better, διψῇ γέ mov, which
Stallbaum perceived to be a corruption
of διψῆν που; but he did not admit it
into the text, because there was no
authority for κενοῦσθαι in place of
κενοῦται. But the common practice of
Plato in such instances, and the extreme
awkwardness of the received text, ought
to have more weight than the want of
manuscript authority.

ov ber τὸ πρῶτον κα Evol μενος.

αἰσθήσει ϑδράοομ panos ἂν iva νήμη, TO 5

ἐν τῷ νῦν χρόνῳ πάσχει μήτ᾽ ἐν 7 πρόσθε = ὠποτ᾽ ἢ Ἴ
ΠΡΩ... Kai πῶς ῇ ν᾿ ἐπ διὰ ΟΝ

2Q. ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν ὅ γ᾽ ἐπιθυμῶν τινὸς ἐπιθυμεῖ, Pa
ΠΡΩ. Πῶς a aad 3 τ ὧν oa

ZQ. Οὐκ ἄρα ὅ γε πάσχει, τούτου ἐπιθυμεῖ. ἀφ γάρ,
τοῦτο δὲ κένωσις" ὁ δ᾽ ἐπιθυμεῖ πληρώσεω. ὁ 6δδὸὃἕἢ ἔμ
TIPQ. Nai. NORA
ZQ. Πληρώσεώς γ᾽ ἄρα πῇ τι τῶν τοῦ ἀψῶντον ἂν
ἐφάπτοιτο.
TIPQ. ᾿Αναγκαῖον.
2Q. To μὲν δὴ σῶμα ἀδύνατον" κενοῦται γάρ͵ που.

ΠΡΩ. Nai.
22. Τὴν ψυχὴν ὦ ἄρα τῆς fas a loess sGdrrea Oa λοιπόν,

τῇ μνήμη δῆλον OTL τῷ γὰρ ἂν ἔτ᾽ ἄλλῳ ἐφάψαιτο: SAN

ΠΡΏΩ. Σχεδὸν οὐδενί.

ΣΩ. Μανθάνομεν οὖν ὃ συμβέβηχ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐκ τούτων τῶν
λόγων ;

ΠΡΩ. Τὸ ποῖον;

ZQ. ΣΣώματος ἐπιθυμίαν οὔ φησιν ἡμῖν οὗτος ὁ λόγος
γίγνεσθαι.

ΠΡΩ. Πῶς:

ΣΩ. Ὅτι τοῖς ἐκείνου παθήμασιν ἐναντίαν ἀεὶ παντὸς
ζώου μηνύει τὴν ἐπιχείρησιν.

TIPQ. Kai μάλα.

2Q. ‘H δ᾽ ὁρμή γ᾽ ἐπὶ τοὐναντίον ἄγουσα. .ἣ τὰ παθή-
ματα δηλοῖ που μνήμην οὖσαν τῶν τοῖς παθήμασιν ἐναντίων.

ΠΡΩ. Πάνυ ΤᾺ

ΣΩ. Τὴν ἄρα ἐπάγουσαν ἐπὶ τὰ ἐπιθυμούμενα ΟΝ

πληρώσεώς γ᾽ ἄρα] The construction | then, in showing that memory is that
is πή τι (δή τι) τῶν τοῦ διψῶντος which introduces one to objects of desire,
ἐφάπτοιτ᾽ av πληρώσεως. Some part, | has proved that to the soul belongs the
then, of the man who is thirsting is in | whole activity and desire, and the motive
contact with repletion. force of the animal. .

τὴν ἄρα ἐπάγουσαν)] The argument,

ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ ΦΙΛΗΒΟΣ. 43

ῳ μνήμην ὁ λόγος ψυχῆς ξύμπασαν τήν τε ὁρμὴν καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν
καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ ζώου παντὸς ἀπέφηνεν.

ΠΡΩ. Ὀρρθότατα.

DA. Διψῆν ἄρα ἡμῶν τὸ σῶμα ἢ πεινῆν 4 τι τῶν τοιού-
τῶν πάσχειν οὐδαμῇ ὁ λόγος αἱρεῖ.

TIPQ. ᾿Αληθέστατα.

ΣΩ. "Ἔτι δὴ καὶ τόδε περὶ ταὐτὰ ταῦτα κατανοήσωμεν.
βίου γὰρ εἶδός τί μοι φαίνεται βούλεσθαι δηλοῦν ὁ λόγος
ἡμῖν ἐν τούτοις αὐτοῖς.

ΠΡΩ. Ἔν τίσι καὶ ποίου περὶ βίου φράζεις 5

2Q. ᾿Εν τῷ πληροῦσθαι καὶ κενοῦσθαι καὶ πᾶσιν ὅσα
περὶ σωτηρίαν τ᾽ ἐστὶ τῶν ζώων καὶ τὴν φθοράν, καὶ εἴ τις
τούτων ἐν ἑκατέρῳ γιγνόμενος ἡμῶν ἀλγεῖ, τοτὲ δὲ χαίρει
κατὰ τὰς μεταβολάς. |

ΠΡΩ. Ἔστι ταῦτα.

ΣΩ. Ti δ᾽ ὅταν ἐν μέσῳ τούτων γίγνηται;

HPQ. és ἐν μέσῳ:

ZQ. Arca μὲν τὸ πάθος ary, μεμνῆται δὲ τῶν ἡδέων ὧν
γενομένων παύοιτ᾽ dv τῆς ἀλγηδόνος, πληρῶται δὲ μήπω:
τί τότε; φῶμεν ἢ μὴ φῶμεν αὐτὸν ἐν μέσῳ τῶν παθημάτων
εἶναι 9

ΠΡΩ. Φϑῶμεν μὲν οὖν.

ΣΏΩ. Πότερον ἀλγοῦνθ᾽ ὅλως ἢ χαίροντα 5

ΠΡΩ. Μὰ Δί᾽, ἀλλὰ διπλῆ τινὶ λύπη λυπούμενον, κατὰ
μὲν τὸ σῶμα ἐν τῷ παθήματι, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν προσδοκίας
τινὶ πόθῳ.

ΣΩ. Iles, ὦ ΠΡρώταρχε, τὸ διπλοῦν τῆς λύπης εἶπες 3
dp’ οὐκ ἔστι μὲν ὅτε τις ἡμῶν κενούμενος ἐν ἐλπίδι φανερᾷ
τοῦ πληρωθήσεσθαι καθέστηκε, τοτὲ δὲ τοὐναντίον ἀνελπίστως
ἔχει ;

ΠΡΩ. Kati μάλα γε.

ΣΩ. Μῶν οὖν οὐχὶ ἐλπίζων μὲν πληρωθήσεσθαι τῷ με-
μνῆσθαι δοκεῖ σοι χαίρειν, ἅμα δὲ κενούμενος ἐν τούτοις τοῖς
χρόνοις ἀλγεῖν ;

ὃ λόγος αἱρεῖ] Admits. Compare

ἐν τούτοις τοῖς χρόνοις] This very
Rep. 604 0; Parm. 141 D; Crit. 48 ©.

gtrange expression appears to have

Ν ck ee ΝΥ"

a hn

-ὦ a

ΣΩ. Τότ
ἅμα καὶ χαίρει. ᾿
ΠΡΩ. ΚΚινδυνεύει..

ΣΩΣ Ti 35 ὅταν ἀνελπίστως ἔχῃ. κενούμενος τεύ

‘a πρῃι. ἐπ Ἤθταδς ae w onvalh
ἄρα ἄνθρωπος κι καὶ’

a 4

τ SOP

ae ἢ αἱ ᾿ —

thee

πληρώσεως: 5 dp’ οὐ τότε TO διπλοῦν γίγνοιτ᾽ ἂν κως.
λύπας πάθος, ὃ σὺ νῦν δὴ κατιδὼν φήθης ἁπλῶς εἶναι

διπλοῦν ;

ΠΡώῶ. ᾿ἀλυδέρ νων ὧ Σώκρατες:

᾿
δ] Oe ὁ
“a4

ΣΏΩ. Ταύτη δὴ τῆ σκέψει τούτων τῶν παθημάτων τόδε,

χρησώμεθα.
IPQ.

To ποῖον;

—_

ZQ. Tdeapan ἀληθεῖς ταύτας τὰς λύπας τε καὶ ἡδονὰς
ἣ ψευδεῖς εἶναι λέξομεν ; ; ἢ τὰς μέν τινας ἀληθεῖς, τὰς δ᾽ οὔ ;

ΠΡΩ.

Πῶς, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἂν εἶεν ψευδεῖς ἡδοναὶ ἢ λῦπαι;
᾿ β

ΣΩ. Πῶς δέ, ὦ ΠΡρώταρχε, φόβοι dv ἀληθεῖς ἢ ψευδεῖς,
7 προσδοκίαι ἀληθεῖς ἡ μή, ἢ δόξαι ἀληθεῖς ἢ ψευδεῖς ;
IIPQ. δΔόύξας μὲν ἔγωγ᾽ ἄν που συγχωροίην, τὰ δ᾽ ἕτερα

~ 9 ? 9
TAUT Οὐκ QV.

ZQ. Πῶς φής: λόγον μέντοι τινὰ κινδυνεύομεν οὐ πάνυ

σμικρὸν ἐπεγείρειν.
ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αληθῆ λέγεις.

+ oe. 8 ae πρὸς τὰ

παρεληλυθότα, ὦ παῖ ᾿κείνου

a ,
τἀνδρός, προσήκοντα, τοῦτο σκεπτέον.

IPQ.

“t ee 2
σῶς τοῦτο YE.

, a a a
ZQ. Xaipev τοίνυν δεῖ λέγειν τοῖς ἄλλοις μήκεσιν ἣ Kal
A ~ A A ~ 4
ὁτῳοῦν τῶν παρὰ TO προσῆκον λεγομένων.

arisen from a gloss; the natural mode
of speaking would be ἐν τούτοις, to
which some glossator has appended the
false explanation, χρόνοις.

ἁπλῶς διπλοῦν) A less appropriate
word has been chosen for the sake of
playing upon διπλοῦν.

ὦ παῖ κείνου τἀνδρός] The word
ἐκεῖνος is often substituted for the proper
name in speaking of an absent or de-

ceased person with respect. Soph. Fragm. —

οὐ παῖς ᾿Αχιλλέως, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνος αὐτὸς ef.
In the Republic Socrates addresses
Glaucon and Adimantus as ὦ παῖδες

ἐκείνου τἀνδρός. It is not known who
was Protarchus’ father, except that
Socrates above calls him Callias, but
he no doubt belonged to a princi
family in Athens. Stallbaum’s notion
that Protarchus is addressed as the dis-
ciple of that man, meaning Philebus, is,
I regret to see, repeated in his
edition. ,
τοῖς ἄλλοις μήκεσιν] All other long
discourses, except those which are to the
purpose: ἢ καὶ ὁτῳοῦν x.é., is equiva-

lent to, or even ἡ τὰ when they are
not to the point,

ta

a TPQ. Πῶς δὴ φής:

is ἘΠῚ Πῶς γὰρ ἄν:

λυπεῖται δ᾽ οὔ.
ὑπειλήφαμεν.

ταῦτα λέγεται;

: ek αὐτὰ ἃ νῦν ae se at oe ἀπορήματα.

LQ. Wevdeis, αἱ δ᾽ ἀληθεῖς οὐκ εἰσὶν ἡδεναῖς 5.
Ο LQ. Οὔτε δὴ ὅ ὄναρ οὔθ᾽ ὕπαρ. ὡς φής, [ ἔστιν οὔτ᾽ ἐν
μανίαις οὔτ᾽ ἐν παρὸ ρζαγναὶς οὐδεὶς ἔσθ᾽ ὅς τίς ποτε δοκεῖ

μὲν χαίρειν, nope δὲ οὐδαμῶς, οὐδ᾽ ad δοκεῖ μὲν λυπεῖσθαι.

ΠΡΩ. Tlav@ οὕτω ταῦτ᾽, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἔχειν πάντες

HPQ. Zkerréov, ὡς ἐγὼ φαίην ἄν.

Σ 2. δΔιορισώμεθα δὴ

ἡμῖν;
' ΠΡΩ. Ναί.
| ΣΩ. Kai ἥδεσθαι 3
IPQ. Nai.
| 292.
TIPQ. [Πῶς δ᾽ ov;
2. 6
— TIPQ. Kat raw γε.

TIPQ. [Πῶς γὰρ ἄν:

= a αἰνὸν
ten atl ee ena τ
_— Ἢ ve. ie ais al Pls 2

_ bracketting this word, which arose
from the scribe not understanding the
adverbial use of ὄναρ and ὕπαρ.

οὐκοῦν τὸ δοξάζον] That which fancies,
_ whether it fancies correctly, or incorrectly,
never loses its property of really fancying.
It is an actual notion, though it may not
_ correspond to an object. The same may
i. said of pleasure; the feeling is

| ἔστιν] I have followed Stallbaum in

σαφέστερον

|
πε ΣΩ. °Ap’ οὖν ὀρθῶς, ἢ ἢ σκεπτέον εἴτ᾽ ὀρθῶς εἴτε μὴ

Ν ‘ A A
ἔτι TO νῦν δὴ

Ἱ λεγόμενον ἡδονῆς τε πέρι καὶ δόξης. ἔστι γάρ που δοξάζειν

Κ .- ἃ ᾧ, ἃ ὃ , a ae :
αἱ μῆν καὶ TO οξαζόμενόν ἐστί τι:
Sot es, «δά os Ξ

αἱ τὸ YEP τὸ ἡδόμενον ἥδεται;

ZQ. Οὐκοῦν τὸ δοξάζον, ἄν τε ὀρθῶς ἄν τε μὴ ὀρθῶς
q δοξάση, τό γε δοξάζειν ὄντως οὐδέποτ᾽ ἀπόλλυσιν.

DQ. Οὐκοῦν καὶ τὸ ἡδόμενον, ἄν τε ὀρθῶς ἄν τε μὴ

actually present, though the object is
unreal. Thus there is no difference as
to truth and falsehood between τὸ
δοξάζον and τὸ ἡδόμενον. Unless indeed
we say that pleasure is of that nature
that it does not admit of any quality ;
but this is not so, for we speak of
great and little pleasures, of good and
bad pleasures, and so forth: then why
not of false and true?

46 ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ SIAHBOS.

ὀρθῶς ἥδηται, τό γε ὄντως ἥδεσθαι — ὡς οὐδέποτε 4
ἀπολεῖ. εν δ. 8
TIPQ. Nai, καὶ τοῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχει. :

ZQ. Τῷ ποτὲ οὖν δὴ τρόπῳ δόξα ψωδής τε καὶ Ernie
ἡμῖν φιλεῖ yey, τὸ δὲ τῆς ἡδονῆς μόνον ἀληθές, δοξάζειν
δ᾽ ὄντως καὶ χαίρειν ἀμφότερα ὁμοίως εἴληχεν ;

ΠΡΩ. δ κεπτέον.

Σῶ. “Apa ὅτι δόξῃ μὲν ἐπιγίγνεσθον ψεῦδό. τε καὶ
ἀληθές, καὶ ἐγένετο οὐ μόνον δόξα διὰ ταῦτα ἀλλὰ καὶ ποιά
τις ἑκατέρα, σκεπτέον φὴς τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι ;

TPQ. Nai. .

ae; II pos δέ γε τούτοις, εἰ καὶ TO παράπαν ἡμῖν τὰ μέν.
ἐστι Tol’ ἄττα, ἡδονὴ δὲ καὶ λύπη μόνον ἅπερ ἐστί, ποιώ τινε
δὲ οὐ γίγνεσθον, καὶ ταῦθ᾽ ἡμῖν διομολογητέον.

ΠΡΩ. δῆλον.

ΣΩ.

τινε.

᾽Αλλ᾽ οὐδὲν τοῦτό γε χαλεπὸν ἰδεῖν ὅτι καὶ ποιώ
πάλαι γὰρ εἴπομεν ὅτι μεγάλαι τε καὶ σμικραὶ καὶ
’ « ’ ΄“ , 4 e ,
σφόδρα ἑκάτεραι γίγνονται, λῦπαί τε καὶ ἡδοναί.
TIPQ. 1ΠΠαντάπασι μὲν οὖν.
ὩΣ Δ).
, A A , “ ’ ὃ ’
γνηταῖ τινι, πονηρὰν μὲν φήσομεν οὕτω γίγνεσθαι ὀξἕαν, πονη-
ρὰν δὲ καὶ ἡδονήν ;
ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αλλὰ τί μήν, ὦ Σώκρατες;

243. Ti δ᾽, & ὀρθότης ἢ τοὐναντίον ὀρθέτητι τινὶ τού-

"Av δέ γε πονηρία τούτων, ὦ Πρώταρχε, προσγί-

των προσγίγνηται; μῶν οὐκ ὀρθὴν μὲν δόξαν ἐροῦμεν, ἂν
ὀρθότητα ἴσχη ; ταὐτὸν δὲ ἡδονήν ;

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αναγκαῖον.

ZQ. “Av δέ γε ἁμαρτανόμενον τὸ δοξαζόμενον ἣ, τὴν
δόξαν τότε ἁμαρτάνουσάν γε οὐκ ὀρθὴν ὁμολογητέον οὐδ᾽
ὀρθῶς δοξαζουσαν ;

TIPQ. Πῶς γὰρ ἄν;

νι Bboy

δοξάζειν δ᾽ ὄντως] But both of them
alike have the property of actually

a > 4 4 4
av αὖ λύπην ἤ τινα ἡδονὴν περὶ τὸ ἐφ᾽

εἴληχε for εἴληφε does not remove the
awkwardness, for the construction

fancying, and of being actually pleased.
Such would be the sense of the passage
as it now stands; but it is somewhat
awkwardly expressed, and Stallbaum’s

would seem to require τὸ δ᾽ ὄντως δοξά-
few καὶ χαίρειν. It is not unlikely that
ὁμοίως εἴληφε has been corrupted from
ὁμοίως ἀεὶ φιλεῖ,

ΠΛΑΤΏΝΟΣ ΦΙΛΗΒΟΣ.

47
εἶται ἣ τοὐναντίον ἁμαρτάνουσαν ἐφορῶμεν, ὀρθὴν ἢ χρη-
στὴν ἤ τι τῶν καλῶν ὀνομάτων αὐτῇ προσθήσομεν;
TIPQ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐχ οἷόν τε, εἴπερ ἁμαρτήσεταί γε ἡδονή.
2Q. Kai μὴν ἔοικέ γε ἡδονὴ πολλάκις οὐ μετὰ δόξης
ὀρθῆς ἀλλὰ μετὰ ψεύδους ἡμῖν γίγνεσθαι.

ΟΠΡΩ, Πῶς γὰρ οὔ ; καὶ τὴν μὲν δύξαν ye, ὦ Σώκρατες;
ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ καὶ τότε ἐλέγομεν ψευδῆ, τὴν δ᾽ ἡδονὴν αὐτὴν
οὐδεὶς ἄ ἂν ποτε προσείποι ψευδῆ.

ΟΣ. ᾿Αλλὰ προθύμως ἀμύνεις τῷ τῆς ἡδονῆς, ὦ Πρώ-
Tapxe, λόγῳ τὰ νῦν.

TPQ. οὐὐδέν γε. ἀλλ᾽ ἅπερ ἀκούω λέγω.

>> OF Διαφέρει δ᾽ ἡμῖν οὐδέν, ὦ ἑταῖρε, ἡ μετὰ δόξης τε
ὀρθῆς καὶ μετ᾽ ἐπιστήμης ἡδονὴ τῆς μετὰ τοῦ ψεύδους καὶ
ἀγνοίας πολλάκις ἑκάστοις ἡμῶν ἐγγιγνομένης ;

ΠΡΩ. Eixos γοῦν μὴ σμικρὸν διαφέρειν.

ΣΩ. Tis δὴ διαφορᾶς αὐτοῖν ἐπὶ θεωρίαν ἔλθωμεν.

ΠΡΩ. “Aye ὅπῃ σοι φαίνεται.

ZQ. Tide δὴ ἄγω;

TIPQ. In;

2Q. Δόξα, paper, ἡμῖν ἔστι μὲν ψευδής, ἔστι δὲ καὶ
ἀληθής:

ΠΡΩ. Ἔστιν.

2Q. Ἅπεται μὴν ταύταις, ὃ νῦν δὴ ἐλέγομεν, ἡδονὴ καὶ
λύπη πολλάκις, ἀληθεῖ καὶ ψευδεῖ δόξη λέγω.

HPQ. Ilavw γε.

ZQ. Οὐκοῦν ἐκ μνήμης τε καὶ αἰσθήσεως δόξα ἡμῖν καὶ

i

ΙΝ τὸ δὴ δοξάζειν ἐγχωρεῖν γίγνεσθον ἑκάστοτε 5

λέγομεν] This is Stallbaum’s excellent
conjecture for ἐλέγομεν ; the change
was owing to τότε λέγομεν, which some
copyists read as τότ᾽ ἐλέγομεν supposing
the imperfect to be required after τότε.
When the bad fashion began to prevail
of writing the words without the apo-
strophus, a practice which has led to
endless corruption and confusion, this
would become τότε ἐλέγομεν.
οὐδέν ye] The γε is added to οὐδεὶς
and οὐδὲν before πλὴν and its equiva-
lents. Compare Jph. T., 548. οὐδείς γε

πλὴν θανοῦσαν οὐχ ὁρᾶν φάος. Arist.
Nubb. 734. οὐδέν γε πλὴν ἢ. γοίαρ.
310. Οὐδέν γ᾽ εἰ μή.

καὶ τὸ δὴ δοξάζειν ἐγχωρεῖν] The
MSS. have, with few exceptions, τὸ
διαδοξάζειν. This is interpreted as dis-
tinguishing one notion from another.
But the argument throughout turns
upon the mere act of δοξάζειν, and not
a single allusion is made to the distinc-
tion here introduced. The confusion of
δὴ and διὰ is one of the commonest in

MSS., and there is a peculiar force in

ι

“-

ἴσχειν 5 3

TPQ. Las; 3

ΣΩ. TlodAdms ἰδόντι τινὶ 1 πόῤῥωθεν μὴ πάνυ σα
καθορῴβεμα a airhage βούλεσθαι κρίνειν pains ἂν τὰ

ἅπερ ὁρᾷ 2

TIPQ. ainy av.

LQ. Οὐκοῦν τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸς αὑτὸν οὗτος ἀνέροιτ᾽

ἂν ὧδε.

HPQ. Iles;

DQ. Tl ποτε ἄρα ἔστι τὸ παρὰ

μάλα. le an ὃ :
ay Apis οὖν ν ἡμᾶς ὧδε ΤΗΝΕ ταῦτα, ἀ

Ψ
A.
me

~ =
u

ἮΝ Ὁ
ἜΝ ἃ
al 1

ry

τὴν wipe τοῦθ᾽

ἑστάναι φανταζόμενον ὑπό τινι δένδρῳ: 3 Tavr’ εἰπεῖν ἄν τις

πρὸς ἑαυτὸν δοκεῖ ΒΟ; τοιαῦτ᾽ ἄττα κατιδὼν φαντασθέντα

ἑαυτῷ ποτέ;

HPQ. Ti μήν;

xO 7A 3 3 4 a ε a €., $9 ,
. ρ OUV META ταῦτα O τοιοῦτος ὡς αποκρίνομενος

ay A eA ” ς », ” 9 A ς 3
av προς QUTOV ELTOL ὡς εστιν ἄνθρωπος, ETLTVKX WE ELTTWV 9

TIPQ. Kal «dw ve.

ΣΩ. Kai παρενεχθείς γ᾽ αὖ τάχ᾽ ὧν ὡς ἔστι τινῶν ποι-

μένων ἔργον τὸ καθορώμενον ἄγαλμα προσείποι.

TIPQ. Mara γε.
DQ. Kady τίς γ᾽

δὴ which may be illustrated by Sophist.
234 C., ὥστεποιεῖν ἀληθῆ δοκεῖν λέγεσθαι,
καὶ τὸν λέγοντα δὴ σοφώτατον πάντων
ἅπαντ᾽ εἶναι. In this and other in-
stances it is of the same force as καὶ δὴ
καί, and expresses a kind of accumula-
tion. The word ἐγχωρεῖν has been
changed on the authority of the Bod-
leian, &c., to ἐγχειρεῖν, but to undertake
is surely less appropriate here than
to be capable, for so we may render the
impersonal ἐγχωρεῖ. The books agree
in γίγνεθ,᾽; a strange elision; but the
Bodleian has preserved the traces of the
true reading which I have restored ; for

γίγνεσθ᾽ in that book is one of the many.

examples of the compendium for ον
(the sign of the grave accent) being
mistaken for an apostrophus. The
sense is plain enough. From memory,

9 “ “ ἢ A ¢ ΟΝ ς
αὐτῷ παρῇς τὰ ‘Te Tpos QuT OV βη-

then, and from sensations, our notions,
and indeed the capacity for forming no-
tions at all, are derived in every instance.

τί ποτ᾽ ἄρα] Iph. T., 387. Sophy
Ajax, 889. τίνος ποτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔπραξε χειρὶ
δύσμορος.

ἐπιτυχῶς εἰπών] Chancing on the truth
in what he says. To this is afterwards
opposed παρενεχθείς, straying from the
mark.

προσείποι] This is understood to
mean, he would say in addition. But
what he says here is no addition, but a
substitution. I am therefore uncertain
whether ὡς should be made to depend
on παρενεχθεὶς (and then again guessing
amiss that the thing seen is the work of
some shepherds, he would call it an

image), or αὑτόν has gan pat: out re |

tween πρὸς and εἴποι.

ας εἰς φωνὴν πρὸς τὸν παρόντα αὐτὰ ταῦτ᾽ ἂν
ἕαιτο, καὶ λόγος δὴ ΝΕ οὕτως ὃ τότε δόξαν

Ty μήν; :

ἡ *Av δ᾽ ἄρα μόνος ἢ τοῦτο ταὐτὸν πρὸς αὑτὸν διανο-
ούμενος; ἐνίοτε καὶ πλείω χρόνον ἔχων ἐν αὑτῷ πορεύεται.

TPQ. Taw μὲν οὗν. .

ΩΤ ὗν: dpa σοὶ φαίνεται τὸ περὶ τούτων ᾿γιγνό-
| pevov ὅπερ ἐμοί:

Γ ΠΡΩ Τὸ ποῖον:

ZQ. Δοκεῖ τότε ἡμῶν ἡ ψυχὴ βιβλίῳ τινὶ προσεοικέναι.

TIPQ. Πῶς:

2ZQ. ἫἩ μνήμη ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι ξυμπίπτουσα εἰς ταὐτόν,
κἀκεῖνα ἃ περὶ ταῦτά ἐστι τὰ παθήματα, φαίνονταί μοι
_ σχεδὸν οἷον γράφειν ἡμῶν ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς τότε λόγους" καὶ

ὅταν μὲν ἀληθῆ γράψη τοῦτο τὸ πάθημα, δόξα τε ἀληθὴς
καὶ λόγοι ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ξυμβαίνουσιν ἀληθεῖς ἐν ἡμῖν γιγνόμενοι:
Ψευδῆ ὅταν ὁ τοιοῦτος παρ᾽ ἡμῖν γραμματεὺς γράψη,

| πάἀναντία τοῖς ἀληθέσιν ἀπέβη.

ΠΡΩ. law μὲν οὖν δοκεῖ μοι, καὶ ἀποδέχομαι τὰ ῥη-

θέντα οὕτως.

q 2Q. ᾿Ἀποδέχου δὴ καὶ τερον δημιουργὸν ἡμῶν ἐν ταῖς
| ψυχαῖς ἐν τῷ τότε χρόνῳ γιγνόμενον.
WPQ. Τώα:
ΐ 2Q, Ζωγράφον, ὃς μετὰ τὸν γραμματιστὴν τῶν λεγο-
μένων εἰκόνας ἐν TH γυχῇ τούτων γῥαφει.

ΠΡΩ. Πῶς δὴ τοῦτον αὖ καὶ πότε λέγομεν 5

Σ().

ἐ- ὃ ’ \ ’ + , 4 = ,
‘ δξαζόμενα Kal peyerere: ΣΝ ΑΝ ap cee τις TAS Τῶν si coca

“ 9 7» ἡ Q ,
Oray ἀπ ὄψεως ἤ τινος ἄλλης αἰσθήσεως TQ ΤΟΤΕ

καὶ τὸ εἰκόνας ἐν αὑτῷ ὁρᾷ πῶς. ἢ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστι

γιγνόμενον παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ;

ἰ

κἀκεῖνα) Construe κἀκεῖνα τὰ παθήματ'
ἅ περὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστι, ‘and those affections
_ which are connected with these faculties.’
τούτων γράφει] τούτων can have no
_ other construction here except as agree-
ing with λεγομένων, which does not
want it, and is too far removed from it

to be taken with it, and not far enough
to require being repeated in it, or repre-
sented by it. It is also probable that
Plato would use a different verb for the
second artificer ; and for these reasons 1
venture to propose in place of τουτω-
γραφει, πουζωγραφεῖ.

4

One at ae “τῶν ἀληθῶν ὃ
oe at δὲ τῶν ψευδῶν ψευδεῖ 3 eae
TPQ. Ἰ]αντάπασιν. “ai ἥν.
τ ΣΩ. Et δὴ ταῦτ᾽ ὀρθῶς εἰρήκαμεν 2 ἔτι καὶ τό
τοῖς σκεψώμεθα. | .

TIPQ. To ποῖον: atl
Be >. Soame os περὶ μὲν τῶν ὄντων καὶ τῶν veirene αὖθ᾽
ἡμῖν οὕτω πάσχειν ἀναγκαῖον, περὶ δὲ τῶν MDOT οὔ αὐ |
TPQ. Περὶ ἁπάντων μὲν οὖν τῶν χρόνων ὡσαύτως.
Σῶ. Οὐκοῦν αἵ γε διὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῆς ἡδοναὶ καὶ λῦπαι
ἐλέχθησαν. ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν ὡς πρὸ τῶν διὰ τοῦ σώματος
ἡδονῶν καὶ λυπῶν προγίγνοιντ᾽ ἄν, ὥσθ᾽ ἡμῖν ξυαβαῦνε τὸ 7
τροχϑίρειν τε καὶ τὸ προλυπεῖσθαι περὶ τὸν μέλλοντα Χρόνον
εἶναι γιγνόμενον ;
ITPQ. ᾿Αληθέστατα.
Σ Δ). Lorepor, οὖν τὰ γράμματά τε καὶ ζωγραφήματα,
ἃ σμικρῷ πρότερον ἐτίθεμεν ἐν ἡμῖν γίγνεσθαι, περὶ μὲν τὸν
γεγονότα καὶ τὸν παρόντα χρόνον ἐστί, περὶ δὲ τὸν μέλλοντα
οὐκ ἔστιν:
IPO. Σφόδρα γε.
ΣΩ. *“Apa σφόδρα λέγειῳ ὅτι πάντ᾽ ἐστὶ ταῦτα ἐλπίδες '
εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον οὖσαι, ἡμεῖς δ᾽ αὖ διὰ παντὸς τοῦ βίου |
ἀεὶ γέμομεν ἐλπίδων 5 : ;
TPQ. 1]ἹΠ]αντάπασι μὲν οὗν.
24. 2Q. “Aye δή. πρὸς τοῖς νῦν εἰρημένοις καὶ τόδε
ἀπόκριναι. | Ἴ
IIPQ. To ποῖον) 4
2Q. Δίκαιος ἀνὴρ καὶ εὐσεβὴς καὶ ἀγαθὸς πάντως ἄρ᾽ οὐ j
θεοφιλής ἐστιν 5

ὥσθ᾽ ἡμῖν] The construction is, | not this property occur? See also above Ἃ
ὥσθ᾽ ἡμῖν ξυμβαίνει τὸ προχαίρειν τε καὶ | ἢ τοῦτ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι γιγνόμενον παρ᾽ ἡμῖν;
τὸ προλυπεῖσθαι εἶναι “γιγνόμενον περὶ | does not this peculiarity occur with us? —
Tov μέλλοντα χρόνον. Εἶναι γιγνόμενον Stallbaum, who produces these ex- q
is not a mere periphrasis for γίγνεσθαι, amples, should not have added ἄσχημον
but has the force of φύσιν ἔχειν τοῦ | αὐτῶν ἑκάτερον γιγνόμενόν ἐστιν, each of —
γίγνεσθαι. Compare below ἐν λυπαῖς | these is disfiguring when it takes place;
δ᾽ dpa καὶ ἡδοναῖς οὐκ ἔστιν ταὐτὸν τοῦτο | for be EbUerervit-n% is ἐν τῷ ae .
γιγνόμενον, in pains and pleasures does ai

1 PO, Πῶς δ᾽ ov;
1.20. Πολλῶν μὴν ἐλπίδων. ὡς ἀκ γομεν: ἃ ἀρτι, πᾶς ἄνθρω-
π τος γέμει ;

ΠΩ; - {ΠΕ δ᾽ οὔ:

30. Aoyot μήν εἶσιν ἐν ἑκάστοις ἡμῶν, ἃς ἐλπίδας dvo-
μάζομεν:;

ΠΡΩ. Nai.

ZQ. Kai δὴ καὶ τὰ φαντάσματα ἐζωγραφημένα, καί τις

| :
a
| a ed

ὁρᾷ πολλάκις ἑαυτῷ χρυσὸν γιγνόμενον ἄφθοκον. καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ
πολλὰς ἡδονάς: καὶ δὴ καὶ ἐνεζωγραφημένον αὑτὸν ἐφ᾽ αὑτῷ
χαίροντα σφόδρα καθορᾷ.

HPQ. Τὶ δ᾽ οὔ:

2Q. Τούτων οὖν πότερα φῶμεν τοῖς μὲν ἀγαθοῖς ὡς τὸ
ἀληθῆ διὰ τὸ θεοφι-

| 9 , aN \
TOAU τουναντίον, ἢ KY

A
4
᾿
|
is

πολὺ τὰ γεγραμμένα πο οτιθ εσθαι

Bris εἶναι, τοῖς δὲ κακοῖς ὡς av TO
oa BD ..,.. -
d TIPQ. Kat para φατέον.
Ι 2ZQ. Οὐκοῦν καὶ τοῖς κακοῖς ἡδοναί γε οὐδὲν ἧττον πάρει-
| σιν ἐζώγρα φὴμέναι, ψευδεῖς δὲ αὗταί που.
᾿ TIPQ. Le μήν: ’
Ἢ ZQ. Ψευδέσιν ὁ ἄρα ἡδοναῖς τὰ πολλὰ οἱ πονηροὶ χαίρου-
a σιν, of δ᾽ ἀγαθοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀληθέσιν.

TPQ. ᾿Αναγκαιότατα λέγεις.

2ZQ. Eici δὴ κατὰ τοὺς νῦν ἜΣ ψευδεῖς ἐν ταῖς τῶν
ἀνθρώπων ψυχαῖς ἡδοναί, μεμῳιημέναι μέντοι τὰς ἀληθεῖς ἐπὶ
Ta γελοιότερα" καὶ λῦπαι δὲ ὡσαύτως.

ΠΡΩ. Elsi.

ΓΝ
i ZQ. Οὐκοῦν ἣν δοξάζειν μὲν ὄντως ἀεὶ τῷ τὸ παράπαν
q

ἐνεζωγραφημένον] ‘He sees the gold,
ind the pleasures which depend upon it,
and moreover he sees himself, as part of
_ the picture, rejoicing in himself exceed-
ingly.’ It is strange that any. diffi-
_ culty could have been occasioned by so
simple and well-chosen an expression.
The change of αὐτὸν into αὑτὸν is indis-

pensable; but the editors have thought
it more prudent to make αὐτὸν mean
himself, than to change a breathing.
ἐπὶ τὰ γελοιότερα] Legg. 814 Ὁ, ἐπὶ
τὸ σεμνόν---ἐπὶ τὸ φαῦλον. Polit. 293 Ἑ,
ἐπὶ τὰ αἰσχίονα. Horace, Epist. ii. 1, 268.
ficto

In pejus vultu proponi cereus.

4.—2

vows ἐνίοτ. = a mee
TIPQ. Taw γε: :
ZQ. Kai ταῦτά γε ἣν, οἶμαι, τὰ airepyi etd

iF Z

ψευδῆ τότε καὶ τὸ ψευδῶς δοξάζειν. ἢ yap; “AD
TPQ. Nai. Hag ae
ZQ. Ti οὖν ; οὐκ τς ἀν αδν Ως ταῖς λύπαις τε δ

vais τὴν τούτων ἀντίστροφον ἕξιν ἐν ἐκείνοις ; BF
ITPQ. Πῶς; 5 meray

ZQ. Ὡς ἣν μὲν χαίρειν ὄντως ἀεὶ τῷ τὸ πᾶράπαν ὁπω-

σοῦν καὶ εἰκῇ χαίροντι, μὴ μέντοι ἐπὶ τοῖς οὗσι μηδ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῖς
’ 258 , δὲ ἣν , > A ΄:

γεγονόσιν ἐνίοτε, πολλάκις ὃὲ καὶ ἴσως πλειστάκις ETL τοῖς

‘ , ’ , ;
μηδὲ μέλλουσί ποτε γενήσεσθαι.

TPQ. Kat ταῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἀναγκαῖον, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἔχειν. :

Σ. Οὐκοῦν ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος ἂν εἴη περὶ φόβων τε καὶ
θυμῶν καὶ πάντων τῶν τοιούτων, ὡς ἔστι καὶ ψευδῆ πάντα τὰ
τοιαῦτα ἐνίοτε:

ΠΡΩ. lav μὲν οὖν. ͵

wad: Ti dee πονηρὰς δόξας καὶ χρηστὰς ἄλλως ἢ Ψψευ- —
δεῖς γιγνομένας ἔχομεν εἰπεῖν ;

IIPQ. ΟοΟὐκ ἄλλως.

2ZQ. Οὐδ᾽ ἡδονάς γ᾽, οἶμαι, κατανοοῦμεν ὡς ἄλλον τινὰ

’ 4A 4 ΄ a 5
τρόπον εἰσὶ πονηραὶ πλὴν τῷ Ψευδεῖς εἶναι.

ΠΠΡΩΏ. [Πᾶν μὲν οὖν τοὐναντίον, ᾧ Σώκρατες, εἴρηκας.

8 Α “ 7, A ’ , A x 7 74

σχεδὸν γὰρ τῷ Ψεύδει μὲν οὐ πάνυ wowipes av τις λύπας τε
καὶ ἡδονὰς θείη, μεγάλη δὲ ἄλλη καὶ πολλῇ συμπιπτούσας
πονηρίᾳ.

ἀντίστροφον ἕξιν ἐν ἐκεῖνοις} Must
we not give to pleasures and pais the
habit (or property) which in those other
things (δόξα καὶ τὸ δοξάζειν). corresponds
to these (pleasures and pains). The ἕξις
is considered as being first in δόξα and
τὸ δοξάζειν (ἐν ἐκείνοις) ; but when we see
that it is ἀντίστροφος τούτων (analogous
to the things now under consideration,
pleasure and pain), we are bound to
apply it to them also.

πᾶν μὲν οὖν τοὐναντίον] The Mss.
and Edd. have all πάνυ μὲν οὖν τοὐναντίον,
which is not Greek. As μὲν οὖν, like

immo, is used when one improves upon |

another’s assertion, and this may be
done either by adding to it, or by com-
pletely changing it, μὲν ᾿οὖν denotes
either assent or contradiction, according
to the words which accompany it. Thus ©
πάνυ μὲν οὖν implies that the answerer —
does not think the first speaker positive
enough; it amounts, therefore, to a
strong assent. But an assent is out of
the question in our passage; so that no-
thing would remain but to join πάνυ
with τοὐναντίον, which would be as ab-
surd in Greek as to say that one thing
is very opposite to another would mi in
English.

HWAATQNOS ΦΙΛΗΒΟΣ. 53
\ ‘
ZQ. Tas μὲν τοίνυν πονηρὰς ἡδονὰς καὶ διὰ πονηρίαν
ουσας τοιαύτας ὀλίγον ὕστερον ἐροῦμεν, ἂν ἔτι δοκῆ νῷν: τὰς
A “
δὲ ψευδεῖς κατ᾽ ἄλλον τρόπον ἐν ἡμῖν πολλὰς καὶ πολλάκις
ἐνούσας τε καὶ ἐγγιγνομένας λεκτέον. τούτῳ γὰρ ἴσως χρησό-

μεθα πρὸς τὰς κρίσεις.
ΣΏ:

δήπου γίγνεσθαι.
ΠΡΩ. ΚΚαλῶς.

25. BQ.
a 2 A ,
τοῦτον αὖ τὸν λογον.

ΠΡΩ. Ἴωμεν.

διείληπται.

TPQ. Ἢν γὰρ οὖν.

τοῦτο δὲ τὸ δόγμα] It is necessary to
caution the reader against Stallbaum’s
translation of this passage. He explains
τὸ δόγμα as the belief that no pleasures
are false; ἕως ἂν κέηται is consequently
made to mean so long as it continues.
To such a remark as is thus attributed
to Socrates, Protarchus, who was main-
taining the opposite side, would scarcely
have answered Καλῶς. But τοῦτο τὸ
δόγμα (not ἐκεῖνο) obviously refers to the
preceding εἰσὶ κατά ye τὴν ἐμήν, and
means the belief that pleasures may be
false or true. This is made certain by
map ἡμῖν, and no less by κέηται; for
παρ᾽ ἡμῖν must apply to both Socrates
and Protarchus, and κεῖσθαι, which is
the passive of θεῖναι, is a word of une-
_ quivocal force, whether applied to a law
or a proposition. The sense of the pas-
sage thus becomes plain: But wntil this

~ 4
IIPQ. Πῶς yap ove; εἴπερ ye εἰσίν.
᾽Αλλ᾽, ὦ ΠΡρώταρχε, εἰσὶ κατά γε τὴν ἐμήν. τοῦτο
δὲ \ δά Φ aA , Ω δ. ὦ Δ “ΓΑ
€ τὸ θόγμα ἕως ἂν κέηται παρ᾽ ἡμῖν, ἀδύνατον ἀνέλεγκτον

ΠΡροσιστώμεθα δὴ καθάπερ ἀθληταὶ πρὸς

3 Ν Α x
ZQ. ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν εἴπομεν. εἴπερ μεμνήμεθα, ὀλίγον ἐν
a , θ ς “ ε , 9 , > Se oO
τοις πρόσθεν, we ὅταν αἱ λεγόμεναι ἐπιθυμίαι ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσι,

, ΕΣ A “ἢ “- ~ A
dixa apa τότε TO σῶμα Kal χωρὶς τῆς ψυχῆς τοῖς παθήμασι

HPQ. Μεμνήμεθα. καὶ προεῤῥήθη ταῦτα.
ZQ. Οὐκοῦν τὸ μὲν ἐπιθυμοῦν ἣν ἡ ψυχὴ τῶν τοῦ σώμα-
τος ἐναντίων ἕξεων, τὸ δὲ τὴν ἀλγηδόνα ἤ τινα διὰ πάθος

τ \ \ A > ‘ , t
nOOVHY TO σωμα ἦν TO παρεχόμενον:

22. Συλλογίζου δὴ τὸ γιγνόμενον ἐν τούτοις.

judgment (of mine) is approved and
established in us both, it is impossible for
it to escape (or become exempt) from exa-
mination. Ihave endeavoured to give
the force of the word γίγνεσθαι, which,
as will be seen, signifies a great deal
more than εἶναι.

τινὰ διὰ πάθος ἡδονήν] The best
MSS. have πλῆθος for πάθος, which arose
from a confusion of A and A. The mean-
ing of διὰ πάθος appears to be, through
actual impression, as opposed to the
pleasure of expectation. Another diffi-
culty remains in the threefold repetition
of 76. The Bodleian and others have
τοὺς τήν. Perhaps the former was a
mere slip of the pen, which later copyists
altered into τὸ δέ, in place of expunging
it and restoring A in its proper place
where it had been absorbed in the A of
ἀλγηδόνα,

TPQ. Φαίνεται your.

pa Οὐκοῦν καὶ τόδε εἴ εἴρητ' at Kat συνωμολογημένον

ἔμπροσθε κεῖται: 9

ΠΡΩ. To ποῖον;

DQ. Ὡς τὸ ae τε Kal ἧττον » ἄμφω τούτω Sixt
λύπη τε καὶ ἡδονή, καὶ ὅτι TOV ἀπείρων εἴτην.

ΠΡΩ. Ἐΐρηται: τί μήν;

ΣΩ. Tis οὖν μηχανὴ ταῦτ᾽ ὀρθῶς κρίνεσθαι ;

ΠΡΩ: Πη δὴ καὶ πῶς:

ΣΏ. Ei τὸ βούλημα ἡμῖν τῆς κρίσεως τούτων ἐν τοι-

ΕἾ Ὁ
zo. Tren 3 τοίνυν, ὁπόταν ἢ ταῦτο
oi we τε καὶ ἡδονάς, καὶ τούτων αἰσθήσεις, με
ἐναντίων οὐσῶν γίγνεσθαι, ὃ καὶ νῦν δὴ ἐφάνη.

aay γον,

A , , ee! ‘ x

ovTols τισὶ διαγνῶναι βούλεται ἑκάστοτε, τίς τούτων πρὸς
’ κ᾿ ἢ κ 4. ἐδ

ἀλλήλας μείζων καὶ τίς ἐλάττων καὶ τίς μᾶλλον καὶ τίς

σφοδροτέρα, λύπη τε πρὸς ἡδονὴν καὶ λύπη πρὸς λύπην καὶ

ἡδονὴ πρὸς ἡδονήν.

TIPQ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἔστι ταῦτα τε τοιαῦτα καὶ ἡ βούλησις τῆς

κρίσεως αὕτη.

2A2. Ti οὖν ; ἐν μὲν. ὄψει τὸ lak sek καὶ ἐγγύθεν

ὁρᾶν τὰ μεγέθη τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀφανίζει καὶ ψευδῆ ποιεῖ δοξά-

SLA ‘ a 3 ee “
Cew, ἐν λύπαις δ᾽ ἄρα Kat ἡδοναῖς οὐκ ἔστι ταὐτὸν τοῦτο

γιγνόμενον ἢ

TIPQ. Πολὺ μὲν οὖν μᾶλλον, ὦ Σώκρατες.
ZQ. ᾿Ἑναντίον δὴ τὸ νῦν τῷ σμικρὸν ἔμπροσθε γέγονεν.

γίγνεται] Is not this an error occa-
sioned by the reminiscence of the fore-
going γιγνόμενον Σ If we read φαίνεται,
we shall get rid of the clumsy γέγνεται
γίγνεσθαι, and we should have a better
correspondence to ἐφάνη, and to Pro-
tarchus’ φαίνεται.

εὔτην] The indicative after ὡς, fol-
lowed by the optative after ὅτι, is worth
observing. Compare Phedo, 95 Ὁ.

tls οὖν μηχανή] The Zurich editors
have adopted Stallbaum’s reading, τὶς
οὖν; but if Plato had wanted to use the
enclitic he would have written ἔστι τις,
or have placed the enclitic anywhere
rather than at the beginning of the sen-
tence. A better correction would have

_ beautiful of all the remarks in this ad-

been, τί οὖν ; μηχανὴ ταῦτ᾽ ὀρθῶς κρί-
νεσθαι;

εἰ τὸ βούλημα] The answer to πῇ is
7, and T have little doubt that we should
change εἰ accordingly. The sense is,
In that our wish to judge of these impres-
sions (the desire im the mind existing
along with the opposite sensation of the
body) ἐδ disposed im such cases to deter-
mine on each occasion which feeling is
comparatively greater and which less, &c.
Much has been said in defence of μᾶλ-
λον, but to little purpose, as it is evi-
dent that we require a contrary to σφοδ-
ροτέρα.

*Evavrlov] This is perhaps the most

ss ΠΛΆΤΩΝΟΣ ΦΙΛΗ͂ΒΟΣ. 58."
—TIPQ. Τὸ ποῖον λέγεις ;΄

a ~ A a | an , -
= 2Q. Tore μὲν αἱ δόξαι ψευδεῖς τε καὶ ἀληθεῖς αὐταὶ γι-
= , x , . ΡΨ ' A a
᾿γνόμεναι τὰς λύπας τε Kal ἡδονὰς ἅμα τοῦ Tap’ αὑταῖς παθή-
ματος ἀνεπίμπλασαν. ,

TIPQ. ᾿Αληθέστατα.
ΣΏ. Νῦν δέ γ᾽ αὐταὶ διὰ τὸ πόῤῥωθέν τε καὶ ἐγγύθεν

ie, ἢ : A
ἑκάστοτε μεταβαλλόμεναι θεωρεῖσθαι, καὶ dua τιθέμεναι παρ᾽

" A
ἀλλήλας, αἱ μὲν ἡδοναὶ παρὰ τὸ λυπηρὸν μείζους φαίνονται
καὶ σφοδρότεραι, λῦπαι δ᾽ αὖ διὰ τὸ παρ᾽ ἡδονὰς τοὐναντίον
ἐκείναις.

, ry “͵
IIPQ. ᾿Ανάγκη γίγνεσθαι τὰ τοιαῦτα διὰ ταῦτα.
Σῷ. Οὐκοῦν ὅσῳ μείζους τῶν οὐσῶν ἑκάτεραι καὶ ἐλάττους
, Y=: ἃς δον ἐδ , ς , A , ° 3
φαίνονται, τοῦτ᾽ ἀποτεμόμενος ἑκατέρων τὸ φαινόμενον ἀλλ
9 7 4 ἂν Ὁ te | A , 9 “ 2Q9 > 4 Nes 9 «
᾿ς οὐκ OV οὔτε αὐτὸ ὀρθῶς φαινόμενον ἐρεῖς; οὐδ᾽ αὖ ποτὲ τὸ ἐπὶ
᾿ς τούτῳ μέρος τῆς ἡδονῆς καὶ λύπης γιγνόμενον ὀρθόν τε καὶ
᾿] A 7 ,
᾿ς ἄληθες τολμήσεις λέγειν.
i ΠΡΩ. Ov γὰρ οὖν.
el ZQ. Τούτων τοίνυν ἑξῆς ὀψόμεθα, ἐὰν τῆδε ἀπαντῶμεν,
: A aA as
bs ἡδονὰς Kat λύπας ψευδεῖς ἔτι μᾶλλον ἢ ταύτας φαινομένας τε
᾿ς καὶ οὔσας ἐν τοῖς ζώοις.
| , ~ ΠΡΩ, Ποίας δὴ καὶ πῶς λέγεις 5
τ 202: Kipyrai που πολλάκις ὅτι τῆς φύσεως ἑκάστων
διαφθειρομένης μὲν συγκρίσεσι καὶ διακρίσεσι καὶ πληρώσεσι καὶ
ΎΚρ Ρ p
’ , ~ 9
κενώσεσι Kal τισιν αὔξαις καὶ φθίσεσι λῦπαί τε καὶ ἀλγηδόνες
A δύ A , 9 ε , a9 δι Ὁ 4, 7
| καὶ ὀδύναι καὶ πάνθ᾽, ὁπόσα τοιαῦτ᾽ ὀνόματ᾽ ἔχει, ξυμβαΐνει
| γιγνόμενα.
i TIPQ. Nai, ταῦτ᾽ εἴρηται πολλάκις.
ZQ. Kis δέ γε τὴν αὑτῶν φύσιν ὅταν καθιστῆται, ταύτην

ν ~ ~
αὖ Thy κατάστασιν ἡδονὴν ἀπεδεξάμεθα παρ᾽ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν.
| ᾿ TPQ. Ὀρθῶς.

'
ti

mirable disquisition on pleasure. For- Οὐκοῦν ὅσῳ] That much then, by

merly it had been agreed that notions,
as they happened to be true or false,
occasioned a corresponding difference in
the pleasures and pains depending on
them; but now it has been shown that
pleasures and pains, by their compara-
tive distance in time, and by their mutual
contrast, produce false notions about
themselves.

which either appears greater than it really
is, that apparent and wnreal quantity
you will cut off, and you will neither say
that the appearance itself is a right ap-
pearance, nor will you venture to call
that part of the pleaswre or the pain
which is founded upon it, right and
true.

oo Υ».

MN HS. BLS Lax ον Sohn de eee ee
TIPQ. Πότε δὲ τ τοῦτ᾽ ἂν γένοιτο, Fi ee

2Q. Οὐδὲν πρὸς λόγον ἐστίν, ὦ Πρώταρχε, ὃ
ἤρου τὸ ἐρώτημα.

ΠΡΩ. iy δή; 3

ae, ν᾿ f
TPQ. [ΠΠοίαν; ' υ ἀμ Ὁ
᾿ oe. |

ZQ. Ei δ᾽ οὖν μὴ γίγνοιτο, ὦ ΠΠρώταρχε, φήσω, To

Y ρ
τοιοῦτον, τί ποτε ἀναγκαῖον ἐξ αὐτοῦ φὺμβαίνειν ἡμῖν:

ΠΡΩ. Μὴ κινουμένου τοῦ σώματος ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερα piss

ZQ. Odrws.

TIPQ. δῆλον δὴ τοῦτό γ᾽, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὡς οὔτε ἡδονὴ

, > «ἃ 9 “~ , ° #29 ἂν ,
γίγνοιτ᾽ ἂν ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ ποτ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἂν τις λύπη.

ZQ. ΚΚάλλιστ᾽ εἶπες. ἀλλὰ γάρ, οἶμαι, τόδε λέγεις, ὡς
ἀεὶ τι τούτων ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῖν: ξυμβαίνειν, ἁ ὡς οἱ σοφοί φασιν’
ἀεὶ γὰρ ἅπαντα ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω ῥεῖ.

TPQ. Λέγουσι γὰρ οὗν, καὶ δοκοῦσί γε οὐ φαύλως
λέγειν.

ZQ. Πῶς γὰρ ἂν μὴ φαῦλοί γ᾽ pete ἀλλὰ γὰρ ὑπεκ-

aA: A , > , a no” >
στῆναι Tov λόγον ἐπιφερόμενον τοῦτον βούλομαι. THO’ οὖν
διανοοῦμαι φεύγειν, καὶ σύ μοι ξύμφευγε.

ΠΡΩ. Aéye ὅπη.

LQ. Tatra μὲν τοίνυν οὕτως ἔστω, φῶμεν πρὸς τούτους.
σύ δ᾽ ἀπόκριναι: πότερον ἀεὶ πάντα ὁπόσα πάσχει τι τῶν
9 , “9 9 ’ \ , A wv. Ὁ τς ,
ἐμψύχων, ταῦτ᾽ αἰσθάνεται TO πάσχον, Kal οὔτ᾽ αὐξανόμενοι
λανθάνομεν ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς οὔτε τι τῶν τοιούτων οὐδὲν πάσχον-

a lat ᾽ γος ΟΝ bY , A
τες, ἢ πᾶν τοὐναντίον; ὀλίγου yap Ta γε τοιαῦτα λέληθε,
πάνθ᾽ ἡμᾶς:

ΠΡΩ. “Array δήπου τοὐναντίον.

del γὰρ ἅπαντα] The passages in
Plato, from which we may learn a
account of this doctrine of Heraclitus,
are Thetet. 179-80, Sophist. 249-50,
and Cratyl. 402. Itis here alluded to
because at first sight it would appear to
exclude the possibility of that state of
indifference to pleasure and pain from

which Socrates is about to show another
instance of a false pleasure, namely,
where relief from pain (which is indif-

ference) is thought and spoken of as

positive pleasure.
ὑπεκστῆναι] Soph. Ajac, 82.
νοῦντα γάρ vw οὐκ ἂν ἐξέστην ὅ i.

ppo-

εὕμμήν

2. 708’ ἔσται

ΡΞ

Προς τούτων.

os @
ἂν ἥκοι.

IITPQ. 1ἸΠοῖος:

ἵ

καὶ ¢ ἄνω γιγνόμεναι moe τε καὶ ἡδονὰρ

ΣΏΩ. Οὐκοῦν εἰ ταῦτα οὕτω, πάλιν

-

ie | |
καλλιον Kat ἀνεπιληπτότερον TO λεγό-

“Oe αἱ μὲν μεγάλαι μααβόχαι λύπας τε καὶ ἡδονὰς
ἰοῦσιν ἡμῖν, αἱ δ᾽ αὖ μέτριαί τε καὶ σμικραὶ τὸ παράπαν

of ITPQ. εἰθρθότερον. οὕτως ἢ ᾿κείνως, ὦ Σώκρατες.
e
ὁ

νῦν δὴ ῥηθεὶς βίος

ZQ. “Ov ἄλυπόν τε καὶ ἄνευ χαρμονῶν ἔφαμεν εἶναι.
TIPQ. ᾿Αληθέστατα λέγεις.

ΣΩ. Ἔκ δὴ τούτων τιθῶμεν τριττοὺς ἡμῖν βίους, ἕνα μὲν

ἡδύν, τὸν δ᾽ αὖ λυπηρόν, τὸν δ᾽ ἔνα μηδέτερα. ἢ πῶς ἂν φαίης

᾿ 8 4 ,
συ περι TOVTMY,

wy

—. TPQ. Οὐκ ἄλλως ἐγώήν ὴ ταύτῃ; τρεῖς εἶναι τοὺς βίους.

— LQ. Οὐκοῦν οὐκ av εἴη τὸ μὴ λυπεῖσθαί ποτε ταὐτὸν τῷ

᾿ χαίρειν:
ΠΡΩ. Πῶς γὰρ av;

᾿ , be a
λέγειν τὸν τοιοῦτον;

Υ κε ‘ ef
ἀλύπως διατελεῖν τὸν βίον ἅπαντα, τί τόθ᾽

ΣΩ ‘O , > 9 ’ e "ὃ , 9 4
. TOTQAV ουν ακΚουσῆς ως YOLOTOV “παντῶν εστιν

ὑπολαμβάνεις

ΠΡΩ, ‘Hoo λέγειν τῆν: ἔμοιγε οὗτος τὸ μὴ λυπεῖ-

4 σθαι.

"το δὲ μηδέτερα τούτων.

Ο ΠΡΏΩ. = Keira.

᾿, om μήν] This generally amounts to
‘nothing more than an assent; but as its

inal meaning is what else? it is per-

y suitable here.

ντινων βούλει] He is not speaking

of the three lives in particular, but sup--

ZQ. Ῥριῶν οὖν ὄντων ἡμῖν ὥντινων Bovnet, τίθει, καλ-
᾿ λίοσιν ἵ ἵνα ὀνόμασι ἀρόνεθ τὸ μὲν χρυσόν, τὸ δ᾽ ἄργυρον,

poses any three things, to two of which
names have been given, but the third is
merely known as not either. The ques-
tion then is, can it become either? See
the next note.

onrny ἄν, χρυσὸς ΩΣ ἄργυρον:
TIPQ. Kal πῶς ἄν;

ZQ. Οὐδ᾽ a ing ὁ μέσος βίος ἡδὺς ἢ
ὀρθῶς ἄν ποτε οὔτ᾽ εἰ δοξάζοι τις, δοξάζοιτο, οὔτ᾽ εἰ.
λεχθείη, κατά γε τὸν ὀρθόν λόγον.

ΠΡΩ. Πῶς γὰρ ἄν;
z02.
ζόντων αἰσθανόμεθα.
TIPQ. Kai μάλα.
2Q. Πότερον οὖν

λυπῶνται:

HPQ. Φασὶ ἜΣ

ars awk Phy ene ae τὰ
πον. ἂς
λυπηρὸς 9

δ μον
ΠΝ

᾿Αλλὰ μήν, ὦ ἑταῖρε, λεγόντων γε ταῦτα καὶ δοξα-

7
ΓΟ Ὁ

, 4 , A
καὶ χαίρειν οἴονται τότε; ὅταν μὴ

ZQ. Οὐκοῦν οἴονται τότε χαίρειν" οὐ γὰρ ἂν ΡΝ που.

ΠΡΩ. ΚΚινδυνεύει.

ΣΩ. Ψευδὴ γε μὴν δοξάζουσι περὶ τοῦ χαίρειν, εἴπερ
χωρὶς τοῦ μὴ λυπεῖσθαι καὶ τοῦ χαίρειν ἡ φύσις ἑκατέρου.

IIPQ. Kai μὴν χωρίς γ᾽ ἣν.

ΣΩ. ἸΠότερον οὖν αἱρώμεθα παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ταῦτ᾽ εἶναι, καθάπερ.
ἄρτι, τρία, 7 δύο μόνα, λύπην μὲν κακὸν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, τὴν
δ᾽ ἀπαλλαγὴν τῶν λυπῶν, αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἀγαθὸν ὅν, ἡδὺ προσ-
αγορεύεσθαι :

27. TIPQ. Iles δὴ viv τοῦτο, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἐρωτώμεθα

Ψ 7. 2 “A a. & Ἄ " A ,
up HUWY αὐτῶν; οὐ Yap μανθάνω.

Σ Δ).

ταρχε, οὐ μανθάνεις.

γενόμενος] Commonly λεγόμενος.
But when we consider how awk-
wardly this word is placed, and then
look to the preceding γένοιτ᾽ dy, it
seems scarcely possible to doubt that
this is one of the many instances where
λεγόμενος has usurped the place of γενό-
μενος. It would be childish to say ὁ
μέσος βίος is not and cannot be rightly
thought to be that from which it has
been formally distinguished; but it is
necessary for the argument to show that.
the circumstance of its coming imme-
diately after pain cannot alter its nature,
and make it become pleasure.

πότερον οὖν] This introduces another

Ὄντως γὰρ τοὺς πολεμίους Φιλήβου τοῦδε, ὦ Πρώ-

question: is pleasure possible without
pain? I have added, in the Appendix,
a translation of a passage from Kant’s
Anthropologie, which may perhaps in-
terest some readers.

τοὺς πολεμίους] This is generally un-
derstood of Antisthenes. The descrip-
tion applies very well to what we learn
of him from Diogenes Laertius. Οὐ
τέχνῃ reminds one of the many sneers
against the Platonic Ideas which are
attributed to him and his friends. A
disposition without meanness but harsh,
is also in keeping with his character
though not with Plato’s general re.
ciation of the Cynics.

2 nid ΟΝ rly ier er gia
. ioe ary, ak
τὰ περι φύσιν, οἱ τὸ

ca ee ceca reat
TPQ. Tovrors οὖν ἡμᾶς πότερα πείθεσθαι ξυμβουλεύεις,
Ε 4 πῶς, ὦ Σώκρατες: ξ
BQ. Ove, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ μάντεσι προσχρῆσθαί τισι, μαν-
ΠΝ , “
-πευομένοις οὐ τέχνη ἀλλά τινι δυσχερείᾳ φύσεως οὐκ ἀγεννοῦς
a , ~ -
λίαν μεμισηκότων τὴν τῆς ἡδονῆς δύναμιν καὶ νενομικότων οὐδὲν
, A ~

ὑγιές, ὥστε Kal αὐτὸ τοῦτ᾽ αὐτῆς τὸ ἐπαγωγόν, γοήτευμα;,
οὐχ ἡδονήν, εἶναι. τούτοις μὲν οὖν ταῦτ᾽ ἂν προσχρήσαιο;
- , +? 4 > ° nw , A A
σκεψάμενος ἔτι καὶ τάλλα αὐτῶν δυσχεράσματα"' μετὰ δὲ
ταῦτα αἵ γέ μοι δοκοῦσιν ἡδοναὶ ἀληθεῖς εἶναι, mevoel, ἵνα ἐξ
"5 A A A
᾿ς ἀμφοῖν τοῖν λόγοιν σκεψάμενοι τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῆς παραθώ-
᾿ς μεθα πρὸς τὴν κρίσιν.

ΠΡώ. Ὀρθῶς λέγεις.

ZQ. Μεταδιώκωμεν δὴ τούτους ὥσπερ ξυμμάχους, κατὰ
9 A ~ A
᾿ς σὸ τῆς δυσχερείας αὐτῶν ἴχνος. οἶμαι γὰρ τοιόνδε τι λέγειν
q 2 ,ὔ 9 , A x e ΠῚ a ε a
αὐτούς, ἀρχομένους ποθὲν ἄνωθεν, ws εἰ βουληθεῖμεν ὁτουοῦν
10 A , Hn) A e A “ A , 9 ‘
εἴδους τὴν φύσιν ἰδεῖν, οἷον THY τοῦ σκληροῦ, πότερον εἰς τὰ

, 9 , [2 “A ἴω , «ἢ
σκληρότατα ἀποβλέποντες οὕτως av μᾶλλον συννοήσαιμεν ἤ
πρὸς τὰ πολλοστὰ σκληρότητι ; δεῖ δή GE, ὦ ΠΡρώταρχε:
καθάπερ ἐμοί, καὶ τούτοις τοῖς δυσχεραίνουσιν ἀποκρίνεσθαι.

ΠΡΩ, Πάνυ μὲν οὖν, καὶ λέγω γ᾽ αὐτοῖς ὅτι πρὸς τὰ

πρῶτα μεγέθει.
ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν εἰ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς γένος ἰδεῖν ἥντινά

ποτ᾽ ἔχει φύσιν βουληθεῖμεν, οὐκ εἰς τὰς πολλοστὰς ἡδονὰς

4g μεμισηκότων] This is nota capricious | this very attractiveness of it is a trick and

ih.
7

q

change from the dative to the genitive,
nor is to be taken absolutely, for then
αὐτῶν would have been necessary; but
it is in construction with δυσχερείᾳ
gicews—with the severity of men who
mee too nvuch hated, &c.

aes καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτ᾽ εὐτῆς So that

ik

imposture, and not pleasure.

δυσχεράσματα is condemned by Pol-
lux as bad Greek, and Lobeck observes
that such compound verbs as ἀνοηταίνω,
δυσθυμαίνω, and the like (where the
noun from which the verb comes is
already a compound), have no substan-
tives derived from them.

' 1 bh \ f λ 1.

ἀπόβιλεκαξόν. ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὰς ἀκροτάτας καὶ o σφοῦρο
μένας. ais oo ωΣ
ΠΡΩ. Πᾶς ἄν σοι ταύτη συγχωρϑῃ τὰ vive Ne "ἡ

ZQ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὖν αἱ πρόχειροί ¥ αἵπερ καὶ ἔδιναν...
ἡδονῶν, ὃ λέγομεν πολλάκις, αἱ rene τὸ σῶμα εἰσιν.

ΠΡΩ. Αὗται: πῶς γὰρ ov ; αν

ZQ. Πότερον οὖν μείζους εἰσὶ καὶ γίγνονται περὶ τοὺς
κάμνοντας ἐν ταῖς νόσοις ἣ περὶ ὑγιαίνοντας ; εὐλαβηθῶμεν δὲ
μὴ προπετῶς ἀποκρινόμενοι πταίσωμέν πη. τάχα γὰρ ἴσως
φαῖμεν ἂν περὶ ὑγιαίνοντας.

ΠΡΩ. Eikos γε.

ΣΟ. Ted's
καὶ ἐπιθυμίαι μέγισται προγίγνωνται ;
ΠΡΩ. Todro μὲν ἀληθές.

ΣΩ.

9 , qn σι 4 ς A A , e ,
σιν ἐχόμενοι μᾶλλον διψῶσι καὶ ριγοῦσι, καὶ TavTa οπόσα

a “ A , ? a
οὐχ αὗται τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑπερβάλλουσιν, ὧν ἄν

s ’
᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐχ οἱ πυρέττοντες καὶ ἐν τοιούτοις νοσήμα-

A , la
διὰ TOU σώματος εἰώθασι πασχειν, μᾶλλόν τ᾽ ἐνδείᾳ ξυγγί-

᾿Αλλ᾽ οὖν] The MSS. have Gp’ οὖν,
which is incompatible with γε, and as
γε is not found in the Bodleian and its
fellows, it has been omitted in the
recent editions. But as it is impossible
to account for the intrusion of the word
in the other MSS., its omission in the
first-mentioned must be ascribed to
negligence. When once restored, the
change of ἄρ᾽ into ἀλλ᾽ becomes in-
evitable; and the latter appears to me
to be infinitely more in keeping with
the nature of the observation; as it is
more reasonable in speaking of a matter
of every-day talk, to say that we con-
clude i is admitted, than to ask whether
it is so. A more important change is,
that I have removed Αὗται from the
end of Socrates’ speech, and given it to
Protarchus. Had it belonged to the
former, it would not have been placed
at the end of the sentence, but immedi-
ately before ai περὶ τὸ σῶμα.

mpoylyvevtat| This is Stephens’
emendation for προσγίγνωνται; any one
who will take the trouble to attend to
the Varie Lectiones of even the best
collations, and see the blunders com-

ὃ
mitted in πρὸ and zp (ἐ.6., mpds), will

at once see that it is perfectly absurd
to decide such differences as these by the
authority of the MSS.

πάντα ὅποσα] I leave this passage as
I find it, though with strong suspicions
in favour of πάντων. The sense is
clearly this, and as to all those things
which they are accustomed (in their
sickness) to feel through the body, they
are more affected with the want of these
(have a stronger craving), and when
these are satisfied, they have greater
pleasure. Tt is not so much the case of
πάντα that is objectionable, for that
would be admissible if τούτων were sup-
plied before ἐνδείᾳ. The passage has
led Stallbaum into great error; he con-
neets καὶ πάντα with what goes before,
and supplies the sentence thus:—xal
πάντα εἰώθασι πάσχειν ὅποσα διὰ τοῦ
σώματος εἰώθασι πάσχειν. What then
is the subject to the second εἰώθασι 3
If οἱ ἀσθενεῖς, it is a ridiculous truism ;
if ἄνθρωποι, then Plato makes Socrates
assert what is notoriously false, for men

_in fever do not ‘feel as many affec-

tions as men generally feel through the
body ;’ for instance, they do not hunger,
nor desire women, nor strong drink,

but what they want, they want fiercely.

TIAATQNOZ ΦΙΛΗΒΟΣ. 61

r ΐ Η A ᾿ “
γνονται καὶ ἀποπληρουμένων μείζους ἡδονὰς ἴσχουσιν ; ἣ τοῦτ᾽

οὐ φήσομεν ἀληθὲς εἶναι ;
TPQ. Taw μὲν οὖν νῦν ῥηθὲν φαίνεται.

ZQ. Ti οὖν: ὀρθῶς ay φαινοίμεθα λέγοντες ὡς εἴ τις
τὰς μεγίστας ἡδονὰς ἰδεῖν βούλοιτο, οὐκ εἰς ὑγίειαν ἀλλ᾽ εἰς

, 4», ὃ a Ἄς. ὦ Φ δέ , δ΄. Ἂν ὃ ,
vooov ἰοντας εἰ OKOTELY , opa €, My Pe nYN lavoovu-

9 il 9 , , e , “ ~
μενον ἐρωτᾶν σε εἰ πλείω χαίρουσιν οἱ σφόδρα νοσοῦντες τῶν
ὑγιαινόντων, ἀλλ᾽ οἴου μέγεθός με ζητεῖν ἡδονῆς, καὶ τὸ σφό-
δρα περὶ τοῦ τοιούτου ποῦ ποτὲ γίγνεται ἑκάστοτε. νοῆσαι

A nw
yap δεῖν φαμὲν ἥντινα φύσιν ἔχει, καὶ τίνα λέγουσιν οἱ φά-
σκοντες μηδ᾽ εἶναι τὸ παράπαν αὐτήν.

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αλλὰ σχεδὸν ἕπομαι τῷ λόγῳ σου.

28. 2Q. Taxa, ὦ Πρώταρχε;, οὐχ ἧττον δείξεις. ἀποκρινεῖ

, ΄“":
yao" ἐν ὕβρει μείζους ἡδονάς, οὐ πλείους λέγω, τῷ σφόδρα δὲ
k 4 a ἀλλ e , ε “ «ἷ 9 “ ’ , Ἢ λέ
αἱ τῷ μᾶλλον ὑπερεχούσας ὁρᾷς ἢ ἐν τῷ σώφρονι βίῳ ; λέγε
δὲ προσέχων τὸν νοῦν.

HPQ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἔμαθον ὃ λέγεις, καὶ πολὺ τὸ διαφέρον ὁρῶ.
τοὺς μὲν γὰρ σώφρονας που καὶ ὁ παροιμιαζόμενος ἐπίσχει
λόγος ἑκάστοτε, ὁ τὸ μηδὲν ἄγαν παρακελευόμενος, ᾧ πείθον-

A A “ 9 ’ % ἊΨ ~ , ε
Tal’ τὸ δὲ τῶν ἀφρόνων τε καὶ ὑβριστῶν μέχρι μανίας ἡ σφο-
δρὰ ἡδονὴ κατέχουσα περιβοήτους ἀπεργάζεται.

2ZQ. Karas: καὶ εἴ γε ταῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχει: δῆλον ὡς ἔν

; a 4 A , 3 > νον αν οἱ - ,
τινι πονηρίᾳ ψυχῆς καὶ τοῦ σώματος; GAA οὐκ ἐν ἀρετὴ μέγι-
σται μὲν ἡδοναί, μέγισται δὲ καὶ λῦπαι γίγνονται.

IPQ. Πάνυ μὲν οὖν.

ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν τούτων τινὰς προελόμενον δεῖ σκοπεῖσθαι,
τίνα ποτὲ τρόπον ἐχούσας ἐλέγομεν αὐτὰς εἶναι μεγίστας.

οὐχ ἧττον δείξεις] I entirely agree | staid and seemly demeanour of the

with Stallbaum that it is, ‘nodum in
scirpo querere,’ to be dissatisfied with
these words; but his own translation
of them has led him to suspect another
word which is equally sound. The sense
is, you will presently prove it (that you
understand me) no less (than you now
profess it), for you will answer my ques-
tion.

περιβοήτους] Frantic. The word is
properly applied to Bacchanals shouting
their evo?, and clashing with their in-
struments. It is here opposed to the

temperate.

καὶ τοῦ σώματος] It is impossible
that this passage should be correct as
we now read it. Hither we must
supply ris re before ψυχῆς, or, what
seems preferable, we must suppose καὶ
τοῦ to be corrupt; it may have been
ἤτοι, for ἢ is often mistaken for the
compendium of xal, and rov is readily
confounded with to. The foregoing
argument does not show that intense
enjoyment proceeds from vice in both
soul and body, but in that one of them
to which the enjoyment belongs.

ΣΟ. Score air τὰς τῶν.
ποτὲ ᾿ ἔχουσι τρόπον. oh 3 i AES EN RN
ΠΡΩ. Ποίων; i Sty Pe Hee
ΣΩ. Tas τῶν ἀσχημόνων, ἃς ovs εἴπομεν du
μισοῦσι παντελῶς. : CPO
TIPQ. Ilolas;
ZQ. Οἷον ras τῆς Ψψώρας ἰάσεις τῷ τρίβειν, κ καὶ Pes,
τοιαῦτα, οὐκ ἄλλης δεόμενα φαρμάξεως. τοῦτο γὰρ δὴ adil:
πάθος ἡμῖν, ὦ πρὸς θεῶν, τί ποτε agers ἐγγίγνεσθαι 5 δ᾿ πότε-
ρον ἡδονὴν ἢ λύπην ; Cr Ἢ
TIPQ. Σύμμηνῶν τοῦτό γ᾽ ἄρ᾽, ὦ Σὠώξῥανιο; ἃ ἔοικε γί- "πε
γνεσθαί τι κακόν.
ZQ. Οὐ μὲν δὴ Φιλήβου γ᾽ ἕνεκα , παρεθέμην τὸν λόγον"
ἀλλ᾽ ἄνευ τούτων, ὦ Πρώταρχε: τῶν ἡδονῶν καὶ τῶν ταύταις
ἑπομένων, ἂν μὴ κατοφθῶσι, σχεδὸν οὐκ ἄν ποτε δυναίμεθα
διακρίνασθαι τὸ νῦν ζητούμενον.

TIPQ. οὐκοῦν iréov ἐπὶ τὰς τούτων ξυγγενεῖς.

ΣΩ. Τὰς ἐν τῇ μίξει κοινωνούσας λέγεις ;

ΠΡΩ. Tlaw μὲν οὗν.

2Q. Eict τοίνυν μίξεις αἱ μὲν κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ἐν
αὐτοῖς τοῖς σώμασιν, αἱ δ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ψυχῆς ἐν TH ψυχῆ. τὰς
δ᾽ αὖ τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τοῦ σώματος ἀνευρήσομεν λύπας ἡδοναῖς
μιχθείσας τοτὲ μὲν ἡδονὰς τὰ ξυναμφότερα, τοτὲ δὲ λύπας
ἐπικαλουμένας.

TPQ. Πῶς:

Σῶ. Ὁπόταν ἐν τῇ καταστάσει τις ἢ τῆ διαφθορᾷ τάἀ-
γαντία ἅμα πάθη πάσχη, ποτὲ ῥιγῶν θέρηται καὶ θερμαινόμε-
νος ἐνίοτε ψύχηται, ζητῶν, οἶμαι, τὸ μὲν ἔχειν, τοῦ δ᾽ ἀπαλ-
λάττεσθαι, τὸ δὴ ἀρῶν τἰκρῷ The μεμιϊγμένοῦ, μετὰ
δυσαπαλλακτίας παρόν, ἀγανάκτησιν καὶ ὕστερον ξύντασιν
ἀγρίαν ποιεῖ.

ποτέ] This word occurs twice in the | part of the sentence as would mark
Bodleian, both before and after ῥιγῶν. | that it is not used as a mere enclitic.
It is properly cancelled in the second ξύντασιν] This is the reading of the
place, for being used in opposition to | best MSS.; the others have σύστασιν,
ἐνίοτε, it would be placed in such a | which is irreconcileable with —

63

pa. Καὶ war’ ἀληθὲς τὸ νῦν λεγόμενον.
ΟΣ. Οὐκοῦν αἱ τοιαῦται μίξεις αἱ μὲν ἐξ ἴσων εἰσὶ λυπῶν
σε καὶ ἡδονῶν, αἱ δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἑτέρων πλειόνων.

HPQ. Πῶς γὰρ οὔ;

’ A A A “ A
2Q. Λέγε δὴ τὰς μέν, ὅταν πλείους λῦπαι τῶν ἡδονῶν
, a Se ~ A hae “

γίγνωνται, τὰς τῆς Ψψώρας λεγομένας νῦν δὴ ταύτας εἶναι καὶ
A A an “-
τὰς τῶν γαργαλισμῶν, ὁπόταν ἐντὸς τὸ ζέον ἣ καὶ τὸ φλεγ-
Ϊ ~ ~ 4 a “εἈ
μαῖνον, τῇ τρίψει δὲ καὶ τῇ κνήσει μὴ ἐφικνῆταί τις, τὰ δ᾽
" 5" A A A
ἐπιπολῆς μόνον διαχέη" τοτὲ φέροντες εἰς πῦρ αὐτὰ καὶ εἰς
9" , 9 , , ” FP ° , ς ,
τοὐναντίον ἀπορίαις μεταβάλλοντες ἐνίοτε ἀμηχάνους ἡδονάς,
A δὲ 9 ’ a 9 Ν Ν A ζω » ’ ε Ν
TOTE δὲ τοὐναντίον τοῖς ἐντὸς πρὸς τὰς τῶν ἔξω λύπας ἡδονὰς
“ an
ξυγκερασθείσας, εἰς ὁπότερ᾽ av ῥέψη, παρέσχοντο, τῷ τὰ
συγκεκριμένα βίᾳ διαχεῖν ἢ τὰ διακεκριμένα συγχεῖν καὶ ὁμοῦ
λύπας ἡδοναῖς παρατιθέναι.
TPQ. ᾿Αληθέστατα.
ξ ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν ὁπόταν αὖ πλείων ἡδονὴ κατὰ τὰ τοιαῦτα
’ ~ 4 A e , ~ , ,
᾿ς πάντα ξυμμιχθῇ, τὸ μὲν ὑπομεμιγμένον τῆς λύπης γαργαλίζει
᾿ς Te καὶ ἠρέμα ἀγανακτεῖν ποιεῖ, τὸ δ᾽ αὖ τῆς ἡδονῆς πολὺ
πλεῖον ἐγκεχυμένον συντείνει τε καὶ ἐνίοτε πηδᾶν ποιεῖ, καὶ

: - A , an A A A ’ὔ
| παντοῖα μὲν χρώματα, παντοῖα δὲ σχήματα; παντοῖα δὲ πνεύ-

such an epithet being only applicable to
a word signifying some active process.
Besides ctoracisafter ἀγανάκτησις would
be an anticlimax; for it is properly used
to denote the effect of sadness in turning
the mind back upon itself. Zuvrelvew
is used a little further on as the effect
of pleasure; it is obvious that the figure
of speech being derived from the strain
upon a cord, is applicable alike to the
rackings of pain (renes morbo tentantur
acuto) or the thrill of pleasure (perten-
tant gaudia pectus).

“Λέγε δὴ τὰς μέν] The first part of
this passage is easy enough, with the

the surface to relieve the interior. This

γε, and shifting their sufferings to the
opposite place. That is producing ex-
ternal heat in place of internal, This
sense might be given to the words
by merely changing ἀπορίαις into
ἀπορίας. The only difficulty that re-
mains is in the last clause; they procure,
as the case may turn out, sometimes great
pleasure, and sometimes mingled pleasure
for the inner parts (rots ἐντὸς Evyxe-
ρασθείσας), contrasted with (mpds) the
pain of the outer, by procuring to them-
selves pain mingled with pleasure. This
is saying that they do a thing by doing
it; what we need to be told is, how

ficially).

| exception of εἰς τοὐναντίον ἀπορίαις that which they do involves a mixture
| μεταβάλλοντες, in which words there is | of pain and pleasure. I therefore pro-
| some corruption, though the sense may | pose to read τῷ τὰ σ. B. δ. ἢ τὰ δ. ovy-
im 6s be guessed with tolerable certainty. The | χεῖν ὁμοῦ λυπὰς ἡδοναῖς παρατιθέντες :
τ΄] κνῆσις and τρίψις are said διαχεῖν, be- | procuring to themselves pain along with
ie cause they discuss the heat in the part | pleaswre, by forcibly dispersing (κνήσει
ς΄ affected. When this is insufficient, be- καὶ τρίψει) what is congested (the accu-
τ΄ cause the affection is too deep-seated, mulated heat), and determining what is
᾿ then they have recourse to irritation of | dispersed (by inflaming the surface arti-

is effected by bringing the parts to the

παντοῖα μὲν χρώματα] Jt causes all

T ΤῸ “ ; ἐν 3 ΝΣ : t Ae ΤῸ au i. >
para ie ase ani πᾶσαν Heed καὶ οὰς μετ᾽ ἀφ
ἐνεργάζεται. Lt ἂν Ἐδὼ Sig
« ϑ . . = a
TIPQ. Mara γε. ὁ ρα ΑΝ
2a: Kai πάγον Y » ὦ ἑταῖρε, αὐτόν τε περὶ ἑαυτοῦ Te
καὶ περὶ ἄλλου; ὡς ταύταις μιν ἡδοναῖς τεῤπόμινοῦ οἷον Seem
θνήσκει" Kat orci γε δὴ παντάπασιν ἀεὶ μεταδιώκει τοσούτῳ,
Medion, ὅσῳ av sg hacen ie τε Kal ἀφρονέστεροξ ὧν τυγ-
χάνη. καὶ καλεῖ δὴ μεγίστας ταύτας, καὶ τὸν ἐν ταύταις ὅ τι
μάλιστ᾽ ἀεὶ ζῶντα εὐδαιμονέστατον κατα ρ ΘΜΕΙΝΜΝΣ om
TIPQ. Πάντα, ὦ Σώκρατες, τὰ συμβαίνοντα πρὸς τῶν
πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς δόξαν διεπέρανας.
~ 9 fe
=Q. ΠΕερί γε τῶν ἡδονῶν, ὦ Ilpdérapxe, TOV ἐν τοῖς
κοινοῖς παθήμασιν αὐτοῦ τοῦ σώματος τῶν ἐπιπολῆς τε καὶ
ἐντὸς κερασθέντων' περὶ δέ γ᾽ ὧν ἐν ψυχῆ σώματι τἀναντία
, , 4 Ν τὸ A A O A Ν
ξυμβάλλεται, λύπην τε GUA πρὸς ἡδονὴν καὶ ἡδονὴν προς
λύπην, ὥστ᾽ εἰς μίαν ἀμφότερα κρᾶσιν ἰέναι, ταῦτα ἔμπροσθε
A ὃ , e ε , ἧς * 5 “A , ¥ a) a
μὲν διήλθομεν, ὡς ὁπόταν αὖ κενῶται πληρώσεως ἐπιθυμεῖ,
A 9 , A , , δ᾽ 5. a ΄ δὲ , ‘
Kal ἐλπίζων μὲν χαίρει, κενούμενος δ᾽ ἀλγεῖ, ταῦτα δὲ τότε μεν
οὐκ ἐμαρτυράμεθα, νῦν δὲ λέγομεν, ὡς ψυχῆς πρὸς σῶμα δια-
φερομένης ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις πλήθει ἀμηχάνοις οὖσι μίξις μία

λύπης τε καὶ ἡδονῆς ξυμπίπτει γενομένη.

TIPQ. ΚΚινδυνεύεις ὀρθότατα λέγειν.

29. Σῶ. "Ere τοίνυν ἡμῖν τῶν μίξεων λύπης τε καὶ
μ μ

ἡδονῆς λοιπὴ μία.

manner of changes in complexion, and
changes in posture, and changes in
breathing, which produce the utmost ex-
citement and shouting with delirium. It
is quite unnecessary to change ἀπερ-
γαζόμενα into ἀπεργαζόμενον, as recent
Edd. have done ; the bodily changes men-
tioned produce the mental derangement.

τὰ συμβ. π. τ. π. ἀ. εἰς δόξαν]
That which one meets with from the
common run of men as to opinion, —i.e¢.,
what one finds that most men com-
monly think on these subjects.

περὶ δέ γ᾽ ὧν] ὦ.., περὶ δέ τούτων
Ὑ᾽ 4. ΓῺΝ has been corrupted by the
scribes into TQN, which has made the
editors suppose ‘that a relative had
dropped out; and they have endea-
voured to restore it by various conjec-

tures, with very little probability. The
sense is, But of those conditions (παθή-
patra) which in the mind contribute the
opposite results to those of the body, both
pleasure opposed to its pain, and pain
opposed to its pleasure.

ὁπόταν αὖ) It is evident that there
is a gap in this passage, which probably
arose from the repetition of ὁπόταν.

ξυμπίπτει γενομένη] He had spoken
of these mixed states before, but now
he makes a new use of them, by classi-
fying them all together as μίξις ee
The elements of the μίξις are prior to
the μίξις itself, and this may justify
γενομένη; but γιγνομένη, though only
conjectural, seems far more simple and
natural. The soul being at variance
with the body in all these innumerable

Pog ha 3

- 7 =
my Be}

sai Bohr air. maids Nankisok

“Tes if ἂν τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ λέγομεν;

᾿Ὄργὴν καὶ φόβον καὶ πόθον καὶ θρῆνον καὶ ἔρωτα
αι g ov Kat φθώι καὶ ὅσα τοίαῦτα, dp’ οὐκ αὐτῆς τῆς
ῆς τίθεσαι ταύτας λύπας τινάφ 5

“TIPO. “Eyoye.

δ, 30. Οὐκοῦν αὐτὰς ἡδονῶν μεστὰς εὑρήσομεν ἀμηχάνων;
4) δεόμεθα ὑπομιμνήσκεσθαι τὸ

ὅς τ᾽ ἐφέηκε πολύφρονά περ χαλεπῆναι,
ὅς τε πολὺ γλυκίων μέλιτος καταλειβομένοιο,

καὶ τὰς ἐν τοῖς θρήνοις καὶ πόθοις ἡδονὰς ἐν λύπαις οὔσας
᾿ς ἀναμεμιγμένας:
— ΠΡΩ, οἴ, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτω ταῦτά γε καὶ οὐκ ἄλλως ἄν Evup-
βαίνοι γιγνόμενα.
) 2Q. Kai μὴν καὶ τάς ye τραγικὰς θεωρήσεις, ὅταν ἅμα
χαίροντες κλάωσι, μέμνησαι:
HPQ. Τῇ δ᾽ οὔ;
2Q. Try δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς κωμῳδίαις δίαθεσιν ἡμῶν τῆς ψυχῆς.
dp’ οἷσθ᾽ ὡς ἔστι Kav τούτοις μίξις λύπης τε καὶ ἡδονῆς;
TPQ. Od πάνυ κατανοῶ.
2Q. Παντάπασι γὰρ οὐ ῥᾷδιον, ὧ Πρώταρχε; ἐν τούτῳ

A “Ἤ 4 nw , ,
ξυννοεῖν τὸ τοιοῦτον ἑκάστοτε παθος.

|
:
᾿
|
᾿

ΠΡΩ. οὔκουν ὥς γ᾽ ἔοικεν ἐμοί.

2ZQ. AaBopev γε μὴν αὐτὸ τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον, ὅσῳ σκο-
Ἷ τεινότερόν ἐστιν, ἵνα καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις ῥᾷον καταμαθεῖν τις οἷός
τ᾽ ἣ μίξιν λύπης τε καὶ ἡδονῆς.

᾿ ΟἸΓΡΩ. Λέγοις ἄν.

ΣΩ. To τοι νῦν δὴ ῥηθὲν ὄνομα φθόνου πότερα λύπην
νὰ ψυχῆς θήσεις, ἢ πῶς;

HPQ. Οὕτως.

ditions, one mixtwre of pain and | 107. I have omitted the words which
arising from them all, is | all recent editors are agreed in con-
a rou tito, combination. sidering an interpolation, τοῖς θυμοῖς
ea ὅς τ᾽ ἐφέηκε] Hom. 71. xviii. | καὶ ταῖς ὀργαῖς. ‘

Ae

5

ἡδόμενος. ἀναφανήσετα Ἑτύρνν ay
ΠΡΩ. Σφόδρα ge

ΣΏ. Κακὸν μὴν ἄγνοια x καὶ ἣν δὴ meres ποία, ‘oa.

WPQ* ‘Tk μήν:
ΣΩ;:
ΠΡΩ. Λέγε μόνον.

ΣΩ. Ἔστι δὴ πονηρία, μέν τὶς τὸ κεφάλαιον, ey τινος
ἐπίκλην λεγομένην τῆς δ᾽ αὖ πάσης πονηρίας ἐστὶ rotearion
πάθος & ἔχον ἢ τὸ λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν Δελφοῖς γραμμάτων. ἣ

ΠΡΩ. To γνῶθι σαυτόν λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες;

LQ. ἜἜγωγε. τοὐναντίον μὴν ἐκείνῳ δῆλον ὅτι τὸ μηδαμῇ
γιγνώσκειν αὑτὸν [λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ γράμματος] ἂν εἴη.

ΠΡΩ. Τί μήν;
2Q.

TIPQ. Πἢῇ φής; οὐ yap μὴ δυνατὸς ὦ.

DQ. λέγεις δὴ δεῖν ἐμὲ τοῦτο διελέσθαι τὰ νῦν;

TIPQ. λέγω, καὶ δέομαί γε πρὸς τῷ λέγειν.

ΣΩ. *Ap’ οὖν οὐ τῶν ἀγνοούντων αὑτοὺς κατὰ τρία ἀνάγκη

ὡς Α ’ ’ 4 ‘
τοῦτο τὸ παθος πάσχειν ἑκαστονὶ

ΠΡΩ. Πῶς;

ΣΩ. Πρῶτον μὲν κατὰ χρήματα, δοξάζειν εἶναι πλουσιώ-

my) 4 4 eon ΓΒ,
TEPOL ἢ Κατα τῆν αὐτῶν οὐυσιαν.

ΠΡΩ. Πολλοὶ γοῦν εἰσὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον πάθος ἔχοντες.

zQ.

Covet, καὶ πάντα ὅσα κατὰ TO
οὔσης αὐτοῖς ἀληθείας.

ἔστι πονηρία] The genitive
ἕξεώς Twos does not depend on πονηρία,
but upon ἐπίκλην. There is a certain
πονηρία in general, called after name of
aparticular habit ; that is, called so from
πονηρός, Which denotes a particular habit.

λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τ. y.] It is better to
bracket these words as Beck recom-
mended, than to think Plato capable of
such a frigid joke, as Stallbaum, with
some violence to the language, has ex-
tracted from them.

πλουσιώτεροι] The MSS. have πλου-
σιώτερον, which is indefensible, The

er δόλων,

Ἔκ δὴ τούτων ἰδὲ τὸ γελοῖον ἥντινα φίσιν fet.

Ὦ Τ]ρώταρχε, πειρῶ δὴ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τριχῆ τέμνειν.

Πλείους δέ γε, οἵ μείζους καὶ καλλίους αὑτοὺς δοξά-

μὰν wr cena ΕΣ
x ee, oth

ἜΣ xt is
wale τὰ

: ie

σῶμα εἶναι δια ερόννων τῆς

construction of δοξάζειν is either with
εἶναι, and then the subject of a reflexive ©
sentence follows in the nominative, or
it governs a direct accusative, as in the —
next sentences,

kal πάντα] And who, as to all things
pertaining to the body, conceive themselves”
to be far above what they really are.
Literally, ‘to be all things which per-
tain to the body in a ie beyond ἼΘ᾽
reality which belongs to t them.’ The
neuter πάντα is put for masculine ad
jectives understood. my preteoat
Jon, Latin edition. 4

a ‘Tlovd δὲ γλεῖστοὶ γε, οἶμαι, περὶ τὸ τρίτον εἶδος
ν ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς διημαρτήκασιν, ἃ vee δοξάζοντες βελ-
; lous ἑαυτούς, οὐκ ἤντες.

Ε΄. ΠΡΩ. Σφόδρα; μὲν οὖν.

d τ DQ. Τῶν ἀ wr δ᾽ ap οὐ σοφίας πέρι τὸ γλκησι πάντως
ἀντεχόμενον μεστὸν ἐρίδων καὶ δοξοσοφίας ἐστὶ ψευδοῦς:

ΠΡΩ. Πῶς δ᾽ οὔ:

ZQ. ΚΚακὸν μὲν δὴ πᾶν ἄν τις τὸ τοιοῦτον εἰπὼν ὀρθῶς
ἂν εἴποι πάθος.

IIPQ. Σφόδρα γε.

ZQ. Τοῦτο τοίνυν ἔτι διαιρετέον, ὦ Πρώταρχε, δίχα, εἰ
μέλλομεν τὸν παιδικὸν ἰδόντες φθόνον ἄτοπον ἡδονῆς καὶ
λύπης ὄψεσθαι μίξιν.

ΠΡΩ. Ilés οὖν τέμνωμεν δίχα, λέγεις:

“ Σ(). [lavres ὁπόσοι ταύτην τὴν ψευδῆ δόξαν περὶ ἑαυτῶν
ἀνοήτως δοξάζουσι, καθάπερ ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων, καὶ τούτων
᾿ς ἀναγκαιότατον ἕπεσθαι τοῖς μὲν ῥώμην αὐτῶν καὶ δύναμιν,
τοῖς δέ, οἶμαι, τοὐναντίον.

HPQ. ᾿Ανάγκη.

2Q. Tavry τοίνυν δίελε, καὶ ὅσοι μὲν αὐτῶν εἰσὶ per’
ἀσθενείας τοιοῦτοι καὶ ἀδύνατοι καταγελώμενοι τιμωρεῖσθαι,
γελοίους τούτους φάσκων εἶναί τἀληθῆ φθέγξει: τοὺς δὲ δυνα-
τοὺς τιμωρεῖσθαι φοβεροὺς καὶ αἰσχροὺς καὶ ἐχθροὺς προσ-
ἀγορεύων ὀρθότατον τούτων σαυτῷ λόγον ἀποδώσεις. ἄγνοια
γὰρ ἡ μὲν τῶν ἰσχυρῶν ἐχθρά τε καὶ αἰσχρά' βλαβερὰ γὰρ
καὶ τοῖς πέλας αὐτή τε καὶ ὅσαι εἰκόνες αὐτῆς εἰσίν: ἡ δ᾽
ἀσθενὴς ἡμῖν τὴν τῶν γελοίων εἴληχε τάξιν τε καὶ φύσιν.

ITPQ. ‘OpOorara λέγεις. ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἡ τῶν ἡδονῶν καὶ
λυπῶν μίξις ἐν τούτοις οὔπω μοι καταφανής.

ZQ. Τὴν τοίνυν τοῦ φθόνου λαβὲ δύναμιν πρῶτον.
HPQ. λέγε μόνον.

7 τῶν] The books have τούτων,

which is utterly superfluous; nor could
& ταῖς ψυχαῖς follow τὸ εἶδος without a

repetition of the article.

᾿ς ἀντεχόμενον] Intelligendum _relin-

᾿ς αὐ» αὐτῆς. Stallb. I have nothing

better to offer, if περὶ is retained; ἀντί-
Texvov dv would be too audacious.
αἰσχρούς] I have taken Schiitz’s
conjecture in place of ἰσχυρούς, which, if
retained, would make Socrates say, that
if the bad are strong, they are strong.

5—2

PY 2. os J er va
39. Οὐκοῦν ἐ ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖς τῶν «
οὔτε φθονερόν ἐ ἐστι τὸ χαίρειν; 2 fy: Saha

TIPO. WE μήν; : ji Lae ods Ἢ se

2Q. Ta δέ ye τῶν φίλων. ὁρῶντας ἔστιν ὅτε
ἀν ῶζε»ι χαίρειν δὲ ἃ ap οὐκ ἄδικόν ἐστιν:

ΠΡΩ,. Πῶς δ᾽ οὔ;

XQ. Οὐκοῦν τὴν ἄγνοιαν εἴπομεν ὅτι κακὸν πᾶσιν; nt

ΠΡΩ. Oe tate

2Q. Thy οὖν τῶν φίλων δοξοσοφίαν καὶ δοξοκαλάνι pe Ἢ
doa νῦν δὴ ὀιλθομῶ, ἐν τρισὶ λέγονπὲρ εἴδεσι γίγνεσθαι.
γελοῖα μὲν ὁπόσ᾽ ἀσθενῆ, μισητὰ δ᾽ ὁπόσα ἐῤῥωμένον μὴ
pane, ὅπερ εἶπον ἄρτι; τὴν τῶν Φίλων ἕξιν ταύτην ὅταν ἔχη
τις τὴν ἀβλαβῆ τοῖς ἄλλοις, γελοίαν εἶναι;

JEPO. >. τι τὰ

ZQ. ΚΚακὸν δ᾽ οὐχ ὁμολογοῦμεν αὐτήν, ἄγνοιαν οὖσαν,

εἶναι:
ἹΡΏΩ. Σφόδρα ᾿ς
aA: raed als δὲ ἢ λυπούμεθα, ὅταν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ γελῶμεν;
TIPQ. δῆλον ὅτι χαίρομεν.
ZQ. ἩΗδονὴν δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς τῶν φίλων κακοῖς, οὐ φθόνον
ἔφαμεν εἶναι τὸν τοῦτο ἀπεργαζόμενον;
ΠΡῶ. ᾿Ανάγκη.
202. Τελῶντας ἄρα ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τοῖς τῶν φίλων γελοίοις
Α € , ’ ς A , , A e ‘4
φησὶν o λόγος; κεραννύντας ἡδονὴν φθόνῳ, λυπὴ τῆν ἡδονὴν
’ A νὴ ’ ς ΄“ | fon an an
ξυγκεραννύναι" τὸν γὰρ φθόνον ὡμολογῆσθαι λύπην τῆς ψυχῆς
ς κα ’ Α A ἴω e , “ ’ A , 9
ἡμῖν πάλαι, τὸ δὲ γελᾶν ἡδονήν, ἅμα γίγνεσθαι δὲ τούτω ἐν
τούτοις τοῖς χρόνοις.
TIPQ. ᾿Αληθῆ.
ZQ. Μηνύει δὴ νῦν ὁ λόγος ἡμῖν ἐν θρήνοις τε καὶ ἐν πραὶ

ΓΙ

γῳδίαις, * * * μὴ τοῖς δράμασι μόνον ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ βίον

“wiv οὖν] The completion of the τούτω] φθόνον καὶ γελῶτα. ΤΡΆΓΟΝ
sentence would have been οὐ φατέον | have τοῦτο. tn
γελοῖον εἶναι καὶ κακόν. But instead of ἐν τραγῳδίαις] There can be no dou
finishing the question, he breaks it | that some words have been lost here,
into two, ἢ μὴ φῶμεν-- and κακὸν δ᾽ | for the allusion to aed cannot
οὐχ--. . dispensed with, ᾿

- ἼΗΙ ἌΣ

MT ATH TP Hey ta καὶ κωμωδίᾳ, λύπας ἡδοναῖς ὁ ἅμα κεράννυ-
90 ane ἐν ἄλλοις δὴ μυρίοις.
ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αδύνατον μὴ ὁμολάγεῖν ταῦτα, ὧ Σώκρατες, εἰ
καί τις φιλονεικοῖ πάνυ πρὸς τἀναντία.
- 80. ΣΏ. Ὄργην μὴν καὶ πόθον καὶ epee καὶ φόβον καὶ
ἰών καὶ ζῆλον καὶ handed προὐθέμεθα καὶ ὁπόσα Baas ας ἐν
οἷς φαμὲν εὑρήσειν μιγνύμενα τὰ νῦν πολλάκις λεγόμενα. ἢ γάρ;
ΠΡΩ. Nai.
we BQ. ἹΜάνθάνομεν οὖν ὅτι θρήνου πέρι καὶ φθόνου καὶ
ὀργῆς πάντα ἐστὶ τὰ νῦν δὴ διαπερανθέντα;
| TPQ. Πῶς yap οὐ μανθάνομεν;
~~ ΣΏ. Οὐκοῦν πολλὰ ἔτι τὰ λοιπά;
| TPQ. Kai πάνυ γε.
| ZQ. Ara δὴ τί μάλισθ᾽ ὑπολαμβάνεις με δεῖξαί σοι τὴν
ἐν τῇ κωμῳδίᾳ μίξιν; ap’ οὐ πίστεως χάριν ὅτι τήν γ᾽ ἐν τοῖς
φόβοις καὶ ἔρωσε καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ῥᾷδιον κρᾶσιν ἐπιδεῖξαι;
λαβόντα δὲ τοῦτο παρὰ σαυτῷ ἀφεῖναί με μηκέτι ἐπ᾽ ἐκεῖνα:
ἰόντα δεῖν μηκύνειν τοὺς λόγους, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλῶς λαβεῖν τοῦτο,
ὅτι καὶ σῶμα ἄνευ ψυχῆς καὶ ψυχὴ ἄνευ σώματος καὶ κοινῆ
μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἐν τοῖς παθήμασι μεστά ἐστι συγκεκραμένης.
ἡδονῆς λύπαις; νῦν οὖν λέγε, πότερα ἀφίης με ἢ μέσας ποιή-
_ σεὶς νύκτας; εἰπὼν δὲ σμικρὰ οἶμαί σου τεύξεσθαι μεθεῖναί με:
| TOUTWY yap ἁπάντων αὔριον ἐθελήσω σοι λόγον δοῦναι, τὰ νῦν
δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ λοιπὰ βούλομαι στέλλεσθαι πρὸς τὴν κρίσιν ἣν
Φίληβος ἐπιτάττει.
ΠΡΩ. ΚΚαλῶς εἶπες, ὦ Σώκρατες: ἄλλ᾽ ὅσα λοιπὰ ἡμῖν
διέξελθε ὅπῃ σοι φίλον.
| 31. DQ. Kara φύσιν τοίνυν μετὰ τὰς μιχθείσας ἡδονὰς ὑπὸ

δή ~ St : ee, | 4 9 Pik , > SR 3 vad ,
ἢ τινος GaVAaYKNS ETL τὰς ἀμικτους πορευοίμεθ ἂν εν τῷ μερει..

a δὲ--- ἀφεῖναι] This does | the pledge or earnest which Socrates had
. epend upon πίστεως (Stallb.), for | given.
this would make no sense, and such a μέσας ποιήσεις νύκτας] Will yow
word would have required ἀφήσειν. | make it midmght? The plural is used
The construction is Gp’ οὐκ ὑπολαμβά- | in speaking of the progress of the night,
ves δεῖν ἀφεῖναι; δεῖν may appear | as πόρρω τῶν νυκτῶν. Symp. 217, Ὁ;
Somewhat out of its place, but as Prot. 310, ©; Arist. Nub. 1. μέσας
μηκύνειν depends immediately upon νύκτας γενέσθαι, Rep. 621, B. Ποιεῖν in
at, there is no other construction | this sense is of more common occurrence
of which it willadmit. Λαβόντα παρὰ | in later writers, but Stallbaum quotes
τῷ is said with peculiar propriety of | Demosthenes, who has οὐκ ἀνέμειναμ,

μῶρ, καὶ μεγάλας ἑτέρας τινὰς ἅμα καὶ πολλὰς φωντασθείσας,,ς Ἢ
εἶναι δ᾽ αὐτὰς pilin es sine ὁμοῦ pines τε καὶ ἀναπαύσεσιν —
ὀδυνῶν τῶν μεγίστων περί τε σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς a ἀπορίας.

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αληθεῖς. δ᾽ αὖ τίνας, ὦ “Σώκρατες, wees :

ὀρθῶς τις διανοοῖτ᾽ ἄν;

αν περί τε τὰ καλὰ λυγόμενα χρώματα καὶ περὶ
τὰ σχήματα; καὶ τῶν ὀσμῶν τὰς πλείστας, καὶ τὰς τῶν φθόγ- -
ὦ ‘ 2 U 1] , a4 Q ἀλύ : A
γων, καὶ ὅσα τὰς ἐνδείας ἀναισθήτους ἔχοντα καὶ ἀλύπους τὰς
πληρώσεις αἰσθητὰς καὶ ἡδείας καθαρὰς λυπῶν παραδίδωσιν.
A “ > a , ed =
ΠΡΩ. las δὴ ταῦτ᾽, ὦ Σώκρατες, αὖ at haces οὕτως:
DQ. lav μὲν [οὖν οὐκ εὐθὺς δῆλα ἐστιν ἃ Ney; —
Téov μὴν δηλοῦν. σχημάτων τε γὰρ κάλλος οὐχ ΠΝ ἂν ὑπο-
λάβοιεν οἱ πολλοὶ πειρῶμαι νῦν λέγειν, ἢ 7 ζώων ἤ ἤ τινῶν ζω-
Α ᾿ A
γραφημάτων, ἀλλ᾽ εὐθύ τι λέγω, φησὶν ὁ λόγος, καὶ περιφερές
, a 3 ’ ,
καὶ ἀπὸ τούτων δὴ τά TE τοῖς τόρνοις γιγνόμενα ἐπίπεδα τε
A ,
καὶ στερεὰ καὶ τὰ τοῖς κανόσι καὶ γωνίαις, εἴ μου μανθάνεις.
“- , oS: 9
ταῦτα γὰρ οὐκ εἶναι πρὸς τι καλὰ λέγω, καθάπερ ἄλλα, ἀλλ᾽
7 8 4 ΠῚ εν , ’ ε \ i. mew ἱϑ 3
ἀεὶ καλὰ καθ᾽ αὑτα πεφυκεναι καὶ τινας ἡδονὰς οἰκείας ἔχειν,

τὸν κήρυκα οὐδ᾽ ἐποίησαν χρόνον οὐδένα.

ἀπορίας] Compare the passage above,
where I have proposed εἰς τοὐναντίον
ἀπορίας μεταβάλλοντες.

ἡδείας καθαρὰς λυπῶν] The two last
words neither require a conjunction to
precede them, nor is there the least
ground of suspicion against them; they
are added as descriptive of the manner
in which the πληρώσεις are ἡδεῖαι.

πάνυ μὲν [οὖν] Nothing can be
more out of place here than this fre-
quent formula. Socrates is not cor-
recting, but conceding; and in this
sense μὲν οὖν cannot be employed. But

it may be said that μὲν belongs to the
sentence, and is in apodosis to a sup--

pressed δὲ contained in μήν, while οὖν
characterises the answer, so that the
combination of the two words here is
purely accidental, I have no doubt

χρῶμαι, πρὸς τὸ τινὰς int εἶναι Sonatinas οὔσας ef

that this is the true explanation of μέν,
but the particle after it in this case
would most certainly be γοῦν. We must
either restore this—but γοῦν οὐκ gene-
rally becomes οὔκουν Ὑε, OF suppose
οὖν itself is owing to the frequent com-
bination of μὲν and οὖν. Πάνυ belongs
more especially to δῆλα.

τά τε Tots Tépvois] As Hesychius
defines the répvos as a carpenter's in-
strument by which circular figures are
described, ἐπίπεδα cannot be trianguli —
or quadrata (Stallb.) The order fol- —
lowed is an inverted one; the prodvenaa 4
of rules and compasses ‘correspond to
the εὐθὺ σχῆμα, and those of the rbpeenaa ta
to the περιφερές. In the next clause, —
εἴ που μανθάνεις is a more probable
reading, for μανθάνω in this sense is used
without a pronoun. In cap. 26, ee aa κ᾽
been corrupted in some MSS. into δή μο

aura

“is
“wet

sie ἔτι ene

+. 975 8

μένας.

τ νήσεων ᾿προσφορεῖν"" ea χρώματα δὴ ib
= ἔχοντα, soe “καὶ cs δ ἀλλ᾽ jase a

- ig). Λέγω δὴ τὰς τῶν punts Tas λείας. καὶ 1 Aiba,
ras ἕν τι καθαρὸν ἱείσας meRos, οὐ πρὸς ἕτερον καλὰς ἀλλ᾽
i καθ᾽ αὑτὰς εἶναι, καὶ τούτων. ξυμφύτοις ἡδονὰς ἑπο-

Ὁ ΠΠΡΩ. Ἔστι γὰρ οὖν καὶ τοῦτο.

SO .- Τὸ δὲ ΝΣ ον νὰ ΝΎ \ , a , .

. 0 δὲ περὶ τὰς ὀσμὰς ἧττον μὲν τούτων θεῖον γένος

ὃ seit ΣᾺ δὲ A , > TS a ? ’ ,

ἡδονῶν" TO 0€ μή συμμεμίχθαι ἐν αὐταῖς ἀναγκαίους λύπας,
Ἂ Τ᾽ “ + 3 “ CH. A a a

καὶ OTN τοῦτο Kal ἐν OTH τυγχάνει γεγονὸς ἡμῖν, τοῦτ᾽ ἐκεί-

3 , “ a ~~
νοις τίθημι ἀντίστροφον ἅπαν. ἀλλ᾽, εἰ κατανοεῖς, ταῦτα εἴδη

δύο λεγομένων ἡδονῶν.
ΠΡΩ. ΚΚατανοῶ.

2Q. Ἔτι δὴ τοίνυν τούτοις προσθῶμεν τὰς περὶ τὰ

θή ὃ , > +S ὃ fal eA oe , A 4
μασηματα YOOVAS, EL ἀρὰ ὁοκουσιν ἡμῖν αὕται Teivag μὲν MY

ἔχειν τοῦ μανθάνειν μηδὲ διὰ μαθημάτων πείνην ἀλγηδόνας ἐξ

ἀρχῆς γενομένας.
ΠΡΩ.

"AXN’ οὕτω ξυνδοκεῖ.

ΣΩ. Τί δέ; μαθημάτων πληρωθεῖσιν ἐὰν ὕστερον ἀπο-

βολαὶ διὰ τῆς λήθης γίγνωνται, καθορᾷς τινὰς ἐν αὐταῖς ἀλγη-

δόνας:

ΠΡώ. Οὔ τι φύσει γε, ἀλλ᾽ ἔν τισι λογισμοῖς τοῦ παθή.

ματος, ὅταν τις στερηθεὶς λυπηθῇ διὰ τὴν χρείαν.

ZQ. Καὶ μήν, ὦ μακάριε, νῦν γε ἡμεῖς αὐτὰ τὰ τῆς

φύσεως μόνον παθήματα χωρὶς τοῦ λογισμοῦ διαπεραίνομεν.

- κνήσεων] This is Van Heusde’s cor-
rection for κινήσεων ; the same scholar
also changed κινήσει to κνήσει in the
passage above. It is strange that the
Zurich editors should not have adopted
these corrections.

καλὰ Kal ἡδονάς] I formerly pro-
posed to change these words into
κάλλους καὶ ἡδονῆς; but I now think
that Stallbaum has discovered the true
remedy by inclosing them in brackets
as a gloss upon τοῦτον τὸν τύπον.

φωνῶν] The MSS. have φθόγγων,
for which Stallbaum has proposed
φωνῶν, showing that λεία is the epithet
of φωνὴ in the T7imeus and λαμπρὰ in
Aristotle’s Treatise on Hearing. It is
obvious. that a feminine noun was
wanted for the sense; nor are φθόγγοι
so properly distinguished into the clear
and melodious, and the reverse, as φωναΐ,
for the former are the artificial sounds
or musical notes which are all melo-
dious, whereas φωναί are natural sounds,
and capable of such a division.

a

ἀλλὰ τῶν σφόδρα ὄλε γῶν.

TIPQ. Ilés yap οὐ ὑπτέον: a
32. ΣΏ. Οὐκοῦν dre μετρίως ἤδη διακεκρίμεθα opis τάς ἕν
τε καθαρὰς ἡδονὰς καὶ τὰς σχεδὸν ἀκαθάρτους ὀρθῶς ἂν λεχθεί-

γίγνεται ἑκάστοτε ἐν τοῖς » μαθήμασιν.. ΝΑῚ
xO. Ταύτας τοίνυν τὰς τῶν apn trae
τε εἶναι λύπαις ῥητέον Kat οὐδαμῶς TOY πολλῶν͵

σας; προσθῶμεν τῷ λόγῳ ταῖς μὲν σφοδραῖς ἡδοναῖς ἀμετρίαν,
“- A A , 4 A Ta -
ταῖς δὲ μὴ τοὐναντίον ἐμμετρίαν' Kal TO μέγα καὶ TO σφοδρὸν
’ , “ -

αὖ, καὶ πολλάκις καὶ ὀλιγάκις γιγνομένας τοιαύτας, τῆς τοῦ
Φ 4 a , 1 @ A ἀλλ ὃ , ’ ͵ ‘
ἀπείρου γ᾽ ἐκείνου καὶ ἧττον καὶ μᾶλλον διά τε σώματος καὶ
~ “~ a“ > , ~ A 4
ψυχῆς φερομένου προσθῶμεν αὐταῖς εἶναι γένους, ταῖς δὲ μὴ

“ ’
τῶν ἐμμέτρων.

TIPQ. ᾿Ορθότατα λέγεις, ὧ Σώκρατες. ᾿

DQ. Ἔτι τοίνυν πρὸς τούτοις μετὰ ταῦτα τόδε αὐτῶν

διαθεατέον.

ΠΡΩ. To ποῖον:

2Q. Τί ποτε χρὴ φάναι πρὸς ἀλήθειαν εἶναι τὸ καθαρόν
᾿ Α A a A , A A A 4 A ,
Te καὶ εἴλικρινες ἢ τὸ σφόδρα τε καὶ τὸ πολὺ καὶ τὸ μέγα

A \ ie , ὦ
Καὶ TO lKQVOV 9

ΠΡΩ. Ti ποτ᾽ ἄρα, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἐρωτᾷς βουλόμενος 5
2Q. Μηδέν, ὦ Πρώταρχε, ἐπιλείπειν ἐλέγχων ἡδονῆς τε

καὶ τὸ μέγα καὶ τὸ σφοδρὸν αὖ]
It has been proposed to supply δεχο-
μένας, but τὰς would also be requisite.
Τῆς is also bracketed by modern
editors; but it is difficult to account for
its intrusion. A simpler correction
seems possible as follows:—Kal τὸ
μέγα καὶ τὸ σφοδρὸν αὖ, καὶ πολλακὶς
καὶ ὀλιγακίς, καὶ τὰς γιγνομένας τοι-
avras τῆς τοῦ ἀπείρου τ᾽ ἐκείνου καὶ
ἧττον καὶ μᾶλλον διά τε σώματος καὶ
ψυχῆς φερομένου προσθῶμεν αὐταῖς εἶναι
γένεᾶς, ταῖς δὲ μὴ τῶν ἐμμέτρων. 7 for
γ᾽ is found in several copies, — γέννα
is the word formerly used in the enume-
ration of the περατοειδῆ, and is even
more applicable here than γένος, and
ταῖς is the reading of the Bodleian. For
rolavras, compare Phed. 79, Ὁ.
. διαθεατέον] This is Van Heusde’s
emendation for διαθετέον; it had been

anticipated by the Venice MS. 2, a
copy full of conjectural variations.

πρὸς ἀλήθειαν] in relation to truth.
As this is the constant and only admis-
sible meaning of these words, ἢ can only
be retained on condition of our changing
τί ποτε into rl πρότερον.Ό Otherwise, we
must change ἢ itself into καί. The re-
mainder of the sentence is faulty as to
the arrangement of the conjunctions
and articles. I would read τὸ σφόδρα
πόλυ Te καὶ μέγα, καὶ τὸ ἱκανόν, which
must we consider as the first in relation
to Truth? The pure and the unmixed 3
or the exceedingly numerous or great,
and the sufficient? According to this
arrangement, each member of the com-
parison will consist of two parts, for πολὺ
ἢ μέγα or πολὺ καὶ μέγα are merely
explanatory adjuncts of σφόδρα; com- —
pare below μέγιστόν τε kal πλεῖστον.

- ΩΝ

wes
Ld

J ‘ TPA. ᾿Ορθότατα.
ΝΥΝ

γένος.

ΠΡΩ. Πάνυ μὲν οὗν.

σ μῆς, εἰ τὸ μὲν. ἄρ᾽ αὐτῶν ἑκαγέρου ξαθαρόβο ἐστι, τὸ
οὐ καθαρόν, ἵνα βαθαρον. ἑκάτερον ἰὸν εἰς τὴν κρίσιν ἐμοὶ
cat σοὶ καὶ ξυνάπασι τοῖσδε ῥάω παρέχη τὴν κρίσιν.

Ἴθι δή, περὶ πάντων, ὅσα καθαρὰ γένη λέγομεν,
οὑτωσὶ cla anal προελόμενοι πρῶτον ἕν τι διασκοπῶμεν.
TIPQ. Ti οὖν προελώμεθα 5 :

DQ. To λευκὸν ἐν τοῖς πρῶτον, εἰ βούλει, θεασώμεθα

“~ ‘9 A ~ A
ZQ2. [las οὖν ay λευκοῦ Kat τίς καθαρότης ἡμῖν εἴη; πό-

χρώματος μηδεμία μοῖρα ἄλλου μηδενὸς ἐνείη ;
IPQ. δῆλον ὅτι τὸ μάλιστ᾽ εἰλικρινὲς ὄν.
22. "Opbas. ap’ οὗν οὐ τοῦτο ἀληθέστατον, ὦ Πρώ-

᾿ ? , 4 a a v3 , > #@
TENG TO μεγιστον TE κΚαὲ πλεῖστον ἢ TO AK PAaTETTATOV, εν ®
{

IITPQ. ᾿Ορθότατά γε.

, oo δ , κ κ ἢ ;
TAPXE, καὶ ἅμα δὴ κάλλιστον τῶν λευκῶν πάντων θήσομεν,
° 9 9 A a ΕΛ A ,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ TO πλεῖστον οὐδὲ TO μέγιστον 5

ZQ. Σ μικρὸν ἄρα καθαρὸν λευκὸν μεμιγμένον πολλοῦ

TPQ.

εἰ τὸ μὲν ἄρ᾽ αὐτῶν] Not whether
but 7f, as is plain from the addition of
ἄρα. Tf. it should prove that one part
of either is pure, and another impure.
ἵνα καθαρόν] This depends upon
᾿ μηδὲν ἐπιλείπειν. Socrates wants to
find all the pure kinds so far as he is
able, because in these alone can the
comparative merits of ἡδονὴ and νοῦς be
determined. I suspect that εἰς τὴν
κρίσιν is a corruption, for it is unneces-
sary, and occasions an inelegant repe-
tition. As the κρίσις was to be, ‘ which
ingredient was of most importance in
the mixture,’ and this must be deter-
mined by mixing the purest specimens
of each, 1 have little doubt that εἰς τὴν
Kpaow is the true reading.

᾿Ορθότατα μὲν ovr.

14 A ’ lal
λευκοῦ λευκότερον ἅμα Kat κάλλιον καὶ ἀληθέστερον ἐὰν φώμεν

γίγνεσθαι, παντάπασιν ἐροῦμεν ὀρθώς.

ΣΩ. Ti οὖν; οὐ δή που πολλῶν δεησόμεθα παραδειγμά-

’ὔᾷ 5 A A »- ς ~ , , ° 3 >) “- ray

τῶν τοιούτων ἐπὶ TOV τῆς ἡδονῆς περι λόγον, ἀλλ ἀρκεῖ νοεῖν
ew > e ” NY ’ e κι ᾿ Q , 4
ἡμῖν αὐτόθεν, ws apa Kal ξύμπασα ἡδονὴ σμικρὰ μεγαλῆς Kat

ἀκρατέστατον] The ancient gram-
marians inform us that this is the su-
perlative of ἄκρατος, an usage which to
our ears destroys all distinction between
the superlative of this word and that of
ἀκρατής. In the next clause I have
changed ἄλλη into ἄλλου, which is abso-
lutely necessary for the sense. We
must not suppose that ἂν is omitted
before ἐνείη: it would be as contrary to
Greek usage to have it after a descrip-
tive relative, as after εἰ with the optative.

ὀρθῶς] This can scarcely belong to
Socrates; it would seem that there has
been a confusion of persons, and that
the true distribution is, ἐνείη" ἢ δῆλον
ὅτι τὸ μάλιστ᾽ "εἰλικρινὲς ὄν. Πρ. ᾽Θρθῶς.
Σω.ἾΑρ᾽ οὖν x. ἑ. om

[Ἢ μὴ Ἢ ec :

όδρα μὲν. οὖν, καὶ —_

ὡς ἀεὶ γένεσίς ἐστιν, οὐσία δὲ οὐκ ἔστι τὸ Sap
Kap aioly yap δή τινες αὖ τοῦτον τὸν "λιάγον ee
ἡμῖν, οἷς δεῖ χάριν ἔχειν.

TIPQ. Ti dy; ; ‘

ZQ. δΔιαπερανοῦμαί σοι τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ Corners @ Ups 4
TAPXE pire.
᾿ ΠΡΏΩ. λέγε καὶ ἐρώτα μόνον. ;

89. ΣΏ. Ἐστὸν δή τινε δύο, τὸ μὲν αὐτὸ καθ᾽ αὑτό, τὸ
δὲ ἀεὶ ἐφιέμενον ἄλλου.

TIPQ. Iles τούτω καὶ rive λέγεις 5

ZQ. To μὲν σεμνότατον ἀεὶ πεφυκός, τὸ δ᾽ ἐλλιπὲς ἐκεί-
νου.

ΠΡΩ. Aéy’ ἔτι σαφέστερον.

DQ. ΠΠαιδικά που καλὰ καὶ ἀγαθὰ τεθεωρήκαμεν ἅμα καὶ
ἐραστὰς ἀνδρείους αὐτών.

ΠΡΩ. Σφόδρα γε.

ΣΩ. Τούτοις τοίνυν ἐοικότα δυοῖν ovot δύ᾽ ἄλλα ζήτει
κατὰ πάντα ὅσα λέγομεν εἶναι.

ΠΡΩ. To τρίτον ἔτ᾽ ἐρώ, λέγε σαφέστερον, ὦ ὦ Σώκρα-
Tes, ὅ τι λέγεις.

ZQ. Οὐδέν τι

ἐρεσχηλεῖ νῷν, λέγει δ᾽ ὅτι τὸ

,
“ποικίλον.

ὦ ἹΠρώταρχε: ἀλλ᾽ ὁ λόγος
μὲν ἕνεκά τον τῶν ὄντων ἔστ᾽

καθαρὰ λυπῆς] Lf ἐξ be unmixed with

& ἹΠρώταρχε φίλε] The false order of
pain, which of course supposes that the 7

these words betrays corruption. It —

other is not.

κομψοὶ yap δή τινες] Trendelenburg
understands this of Aristippus, who,
according to Diogenes Laertius, ii. 87,
taught that all pleasure was in κίνησις.
But the school of Heraclitus and of
Protagoras must have held the same
doctrine. These could not, indeed, have
formally denied οὐσία to pleasure, for

that would have implied their conces-

sion of it to other things; but pleasure
itself would probably be one of the ex-
amples by which they supported their
argument.

arose in all probability from a dirro-
γραφία. !
τὸ τρίτον ἔτ᾽ ἐρῶ] The books have —
ὅσα λέγομεν εἶναι τὸ τρίτον ἑτέρῳ, out of
which some have endeavoured to Ἔχ
tract a miserable metaphysical. joke.
Protarchus had already asked twice —
(πῶς τούτω κ. é. λέγ᾽ ἔτι σαφέστερον —
for Socrates’ meaning. For ὅσα NE
Ύομεν εἶναι, compare above 16, ἢ. τών
λεγομένων εἶναι. g
ἐρεσχηλεῖ] The quotation from. Pare
thenius in the Atym. Mag. referred t
by Pierson on Meris in υ. ean

bhi

i
ΙΝ
\
ἐ
4
:

TIPQ. Ti γὰρ οὔ:

συ ΠΡ Iota;

a.” “Μόγις ἔμαθον ha τὸ cnet Biter
me Taxa δ᾽ ἴσως, ὦ παῖ, μᾶλλον. agar προελ-
᾿ θόντος τοῦ λόγου.

— ΣΩ, Avo δὴ τάδε ἕτερα λάβωμεν.

Σῶ. “Εν μέν τι γένεσιν πάντων, τὴν δὲ οὐσίαν ἕτε-

ρον ἕν.

᾿ς ΠΡΏΩ, Avo ἀποδέχομαί σου ταῦτα, οὐσίαν καὶ γένεσιν.

ΣΩ. ᾿Ορθότατα. πότερον οὖν τούτων ἕνεκα ποτέρου,

A , ἃ δ ἢ δ a a A ae 3 ’
τὴν γένεσιν ουσιας EVEKA φῶμεν ἢ τὴν οὐυσιαν εἰναι γενέσεως

“ .
ἕνεκα 5

ΠΡΩ. ὙἙΤοῦτο ὃ προσαγορεύεται οὐσία; εἰ γενέσεως ἕνεκα

a > Ν v4 93 U ~ U be
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ὅπερ ἐστί, νῦν πυνθανει 5

ZQ. PDaivopa.

IPQ. Πρὸς θεῶν ἄρ᾽ dv ἐπανερωτᾷς με τοιόνδε τι:

λέγ᾽, ὦ ΠΡρώταρχξέ, μοι, πότερα πλοίων ναυπηγίαν ἕνεκα φὴς

r A ; ς « ἣν ,
γίγνεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ πλοῖα ἕνεκα ναυπηγίας ; Kat πάνθ᾽ ὁπόσα

“ 9 ,
τοιαῦτ᾽ ἐστί:

ZQ. Aéyw τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ, ὦ Πρώταρχε.

ἘΓΡΏ. εἰ δ οὖν οὐκ αὐτὸς ἀπεκρίνω σαυτῷ, o Σώκρατες;

ΣΩ. Οὐδὲν ὅ τι οὔ: σὺ μέντοι τοῦ λόγου συμμέτεχε.

ΠΡΩ. Ila μὲν οὖν.

ΣΩ, Φδημὶ δὴ γενέσεως μὲν ἕνεκα φάρμακά τε καὶ πάντα

ϑ, A “ e U “ Cee: δὲ ,
opyava καὶ TAGQV ὕλην παρατίθεσθαι σασιν. EKADTHV VCE yeve-

"

apparently decisive as to the ortho-
graphy of this word. If Pierson had
known that the oldest MSS. of Plato
have the 7, he would have pronounced
with greater certainty in its favour.
*Epeoxedet seems to have been a later
form.

πρὸς θεῶν] The MSS. and Edd.
have Πρω. Πρὸς θεῶν ap’ ἂν " ἐπανερωτᾷς
με; Σω. Τοιόνδε τι λέγω, ὦ “Πρώταρχέε
μοι-----τοιαῦτ᾽ ἐστί, λέγω τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ ὦ

Iipdérapxe. It is strange that Bekker’s

note, ‘ τοιόνδε hee eidem dant
= EH,’ has never led any one to the
right distribution of this passage. av
before éravepwrds has led to all manner
of conjectural emendations, the least
improbable of which is R. Β, Hirschig’s
ἄρ᾽ ἂν ἐπανερωτῴης pe, but I believe it
to have arisen from a negligent repeti-
tion of dp’. The absurdity of Socrates
calling the same thing τοιόνδε τι and
τοῦτ᾽ αὐτό, seems not to have struck the
editors.

TPQ. Ti μήν;
2Q.

σαν “δὲ. ἥδε ὁ οὐσίας ἕνεκα α γίγνεσθαι &u 2
TIPQ. Σαφέστατα μὲν οὖν. ΒΝ ΤΙΜΉΝ
ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν ἡδονή γε; εἴπερ γένεσίς ἐ

5, 3 “ , ’ . #
οὐσίας ἐξ ἀνάγκης γίγνοιτ᾽ ἄν.

“ a A fa 2 8 \ Qa a δ»
γίγνεται; ἐν TY TOU ἀγαθοῦ μοίρᾳ ἐκεῖνό EG TALE ΤΩ δὲ TtvOS το

; Μ » - ,
ἕνεκα γιγνόμενον εἰς ἄλλην, ὦ ἄριστε, μοῖραν θετέον.

ΠΡΩ. Replat enacts
=Q.

"AXN’ οὖν ἡδονή ve εἴπερ γένεσίς ἐστιν, εἰς ἄλλην ἢ

τὴν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ μοῖραν αὐτὴν τιθέντες ὀρθῶς θήσομεν.

ΠΡΩ. ᾽Ὀρθότατα μὲν οὗν.

A , A ,
ZQ. Οὐκοῦν, ὅπερ ἀρχόμενος εἶπον τούτου τοῦ λόγου,
~ “-- a ‘ , , A "
τῷ μηνύσαντι τῆς ἡδονῆς πέρι τὸ γένεσιν μέν, οὐσίαν δὲ und
ς a ς κα 9S x ὃ a δὴλ A δ Ὁ
ἡντινοῦν αὐτῆς εἶναι, χάριν ἔχειν δεῖ. ὁῆλον γὰρ OTL οὗτος

΄“- > “~
TOV φασκόντων ἡδονὴν ἀγαθὸν εἶναι καταγελᾷ.

ITPQ. Σφόδρα γε.

4 A € 4 ἅ “a ε , 4 “~ 9 “
» (); Καὶ μὴν Ο AUTOS OVUTOS ΕΚασΤΟΤΕ Καὶ τῶν EV ταις

γενέσεσιν ἀποτελουμένων marerpeNa erie
IIPQ. Iles δὴ καὶ ποίων pio ;
2Q. Τῶν ὅσ᾽ οἱ ἐξιώμενοι jj ἢ πείνην ἣ δίψαν ἤ ἤ τι τῶν

γίγνεται] Commonly γίγνοιτ᾽ ἄν,
which is barbarous. Had ἐκεῖνο ἂν εἴη
followed, γίγνοιτο without ἂν would
have been correct; but with ἐστὶ we
must have either del γίγνεται or del ἂν
γίγνηται, and even the latter would be
in much better accordance with some-
thing more remote than ἐστί, such as
ἔσται or ἀνάγκη εἶναι.

᾿Αλλ᾽ οὖν--- γε] Here again the MSS.
have the absurd reading*Ap’ οὖν. The
conclusion follows so necessarily from
that which has been said, that it would
be quite out of place to make it the
subject of a qeeien the presence of
ye shows not o the onerey aot but
the sure method i | correcting

ἔχειν δεῖ] The best MSS. eal δεῖν.
This error is of continual occurrence in
infinitives having the circumflex, which
τ so easily confounded with the sigla
of ν.

τῶν ὅσ᾽ of ἐξιώμενοι ἢ πείνην ἢ
δίψαν ---χαίρουσι] (He will laugh) at all
such things as they rejoice in, who
assuage hunger or thirst, dc. The MSS.
and all former editions have τῶν ὅσοι,
and in order to explain this, τῶν
ἀποτελούμενων is taken as the genitive
of of ἀποτελούμενοι, which is translated,
those who are satisfied. But no example
can be found of any such use of ἀποτε-
λεῖν, while its employment with words
signifying desire is very frequent, and
perfectly consistent with its proper
meaning. Besides, such a sense occa-
sions a flat repetition; for what differ-
ence is there between of φάσκοντες
ἡδονὴν ἀγαθὸν εἶναι and those who, ac-
cording to this interpretation, are here
mentioned? For the accusative with

χαίρουσι we may compare above, 21 A.

ἡδόμενος ἡδονὰς Tas μεγίστας, and Legg.
733 Δ. χαίρειν πλείω.

|
| .
i ἢ

(τ: ας A ~ 4 ef “ὁ ” , 4
4 ‘TE και “πεινῶντες καὶ τἄλλα, α τις ὧν εἰποις. σαντα Ta ἑπόμενα
oo. we tF , ; 4 ,
TOlS TOLOVTOLS παθήμασι μῆ πασχόοντές.

— ΠΡΩ, ἘἘοίκασι γοῦν.

2ZQ. Οὐκοῦν τῷ γίγνεσθαί γε τοὐναντίον ἅπαντες τὸ
φθείρεσθαι φαῖμεν ἄν.

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αναγκαῖον.

ΣΩ. Τὴν δὴ φθορὰν καὶ γένεσιν αἱροῖτ᾽ ἄν τις τοῦθ᾽
αἱ οὐ evo ἀλλ᾽ ΕῚ A , 9 a Bi A 9 a

poupevos, ἀλλ᾽ ov Tov τρίτον ἐκεῖνον βίον, Tov ἐν ᾧ

er

χαίρειν μήτε λυπεῖσθαι, φρονεῖν δ᾽ ἦν δυνατὸν ὡς οἵ

o
τὸ

καθαρώτατα.
. ΠΡΩ, ἸΠολλή τις, ὡς ἔοικεν, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἀλογία

, , φ a! A ὃ A ἐϑ ς A e “- “
ξυμβαίνει γίγνεσθαι, ἐάν τις τὴν ἡδονὴν ὡς ἀγαθὸν ἡμῖν τιθῆ-
ται.

ZQ. Πολλή, ἐπεὶ καὶ τῆδε ἔτι λέγωμεν.

TPQ. Ih;

XQ. Πῶς οὐκ ἄλογόν ἐστι μηδὲν ἀγαθὸν εἶναι μηδὲ καλὸν
μήτε ἐν σώμασι μήτ᾽ ἐν πολλοῖς ἄλλοις πλὴν ἐν ψυχῆ, καὶ
> al e A , 9 , er | , A ~ +S A
ἐνταῦθα ἡδονὴν μόνον, ἀνδρίαν δὲ ἢ σωφροσύνην ἢ νοῦν ἤ τι τῶν
ἄλλων ὅσα ἀγαθὰ εἴληχε ψυχή, μηδὲν τοιοῦτον εἶναι; πρὸς

, ᾿ δ Ν Α 9 “ A 9 , 1
τούτοις δὲ ἔτι τὸν μὴ χαίροντα: ἀλγοῦντα δὲ ἀναγκάζεσθαι
φάναι κακὸν εἶναι τότε ὅταν GAYN, Kav ἣ ἄριστος πάντων, καὶ
τὸν χαίροντα αὖ, ὅσῳ μᾶλλον χαίρει, τότε ὅταν χαίρη: το-
σούτῳ διαφέρειν πρὸς ἀρετήν.

ΠΡΩ. Ilavr’ ἐστὶ ταῦτα, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὡς δυνατὸν ἀλο-
γώτατα.

84. LQ. Μὴ τοίνυν ἡδονῆς μὲν πάντως ἐξέτασιν πᾶσαν

9 A , A δὲ δι τν , ® ὃ ,
ETLXELPWILEV ποιήσασθαι. VOU O€ και ἐπιστήμης OLOV pet OMLEVOE

σφόδρα φανῶμεν" γενναίως δέ, εἴ πή τι σαθρὸν ἔχει, πᾶν

εἴ πή τι σαθρὸν ἔχει] The verb σήθω,
to strain or percolate, has the same rela-
tion to σαθρὸς as σήπω ἴο campbs. Hence
the proper meaning of the word σαθρὸς
is, that which suffers anything to run
through it; it is therefore used of a
leaky or cracked vessel. To ring a
vessel in order to ascertain its sound-

ness, is mepixpovew (with coins κωδωνί-
few); and then it was said either ὑγιὲς
or σαθρὸν βομβεῖν---ἡχεῖν---φθέγγεσθαι.
The conjecture on this place, σαθρὸν
ἠχεῖ, is not admissible, for if this had
been the meaning, the future must have
been used,

ΠΡΩ. ‘Opies.

ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν ἡ ἡμῖν τὸ μέν, οἶμαι, ἐδαδαθν ιν. ;

κατιδόντες “εἰς τὴν κρᾶσιν. wviogpetany Oral ina vay Tv
Kal τοῖς τῆς ἡδονῆς μέρεσιν ἀληθεστάτοι. 6΄ atria eR

i)

περὶ τὰ μαθήματα ἐ ἐπιστήμης; τὸ δὲ περὶ παιδείαν καὶ μετ,

Ἂς ἀν
ἤ πῶς:

ΠΡΩ. Οὕτως.

2ZQ. Ἔν δὴ ταῖς ia a διανοηθῶμεν 5 a stile εἰ τὸ
μὲν ἐπιστήμης αὐτῶν μᾶλλον ἐχόμενον, πὸ δὲ ἧττον ἔνι, καὶ

“ ς ποι ae t ‘ δ᾽ ee . , ‘
δεῖ τὰ μὲν ὡς καθαρώτερα νομίζειν, τὰ ws ἀκαθαρτότερα.

ΤΠΠΡΩ. Οὐκοῦν χρή.

2. Tas τοίνυν ἡγεμονικὰς διαληπτέον ἑκάστων αὐτῶν

χωρίς;
ΠΡΩ. Π1Ποίας καὶ πῶς:

εἰς τὴν κρᾶσιν] Stallbaum has unsuc-
cessfully defended κρίσιν against Schlei-
ermacher, who proposed κρᾶσιν. There
is no question of the comparison
at present, but of the admixture, in
order to which, as Socrates had already
observed (52 τὺ, it is necessary to have
each kind in its purest state. χρῆσθαι
μέρεσιν els κρᾶσιν is as elegant as χρῆ-
σθαι μ. εἰς κρίσιν (τῶν μερῶν) is the re-
verse.

οὐκοῦν ἡμῖν] The division of the arts
and sciences which follows has not been
well understood by several editors. The
first division is into the Productive and
the Instructive. The Productive are
shown to partake, some more and some
less, of the. Mathematical, and they are
therefore subdivided according to this,
more or less. Then the Mathematical
are divided, not. as part of the Pro-
ductive (to ‘which they do not belong,
although they are associated with it),
but a tacit return is made to the original
division, and the Instructive come
under consideration. The Mathema-
tical, then, as one branch of these, are
subdivided into the Pure and the Con-
crete; and lastly, Dialectic is laid down
as the purest and most absolute science
of all.

παιδείαν καὶ τροφήν] These words
are to be taken together as constituting
one term. ‘They frequently occur in
this manner, for they include the whole
of education, being the correlatives of

| numbering and measurement, it is evi- —

δ. ἐς )
wh

μουσικὴ and γυμναστική. They are op-
posed here to the productive arts (not
merely the mechanical in its lowest
sense), which are first mentioned under
the head of δημιουργικόν, and afterwards
are called χειροτεχνικαί.

ἐν δὴ ταῖς χειροτεχνικαῖς)]Ὶ Jn the
manual arts, then, let us first observe
whether there is one part of (each of)
them more akin to science, and another
less. This is done by showing that in
music, for instance, there is a part
which proceeds by measurement and
computation, and a far larger part which
is merely empirical. It is therefore not
at all necessary to change ἔνε into ἐστί,
as Schleiermacher proposed. The cause
of his dissatisfaction with the text and
the meaning offered by it, was that he
supposed the τὰ μὲν and τὰ δὲ which
follow to, be identical with the preceding
τὸ μὲν and τὸ δέ; but the change of
number is sufficient to show that this
was not Plato’s intention. τὰ μὲν and
τὰ δὲ are some and others, not these and
those. I have changed καθαρώτατα into
καθαρώτερα, first because a comparative
must correspond to a comparative, and
secondly, because if we are to take
away ἑκάστων χωρὶς from both the pure
and impure, those principal sciences of

dent that in the former case there

would be nothing left “if the pure were

absolutely such, and not only <a a
tively, π

ae * ὃ ῦ in ν πασῶν που τεχνῶν ἄι av τις ἀριθμητικὴν. χωρίζῃ
πρητικὴν καὶ sabi ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, φαῦλον τὸ κατα-

γόμενον ἑκάστης ἂν henge ar
“To, “Φαῦλον μὲν δή.
— ΣΏΩ, Τὸ γοῦν μετὰ ταῦτ᾽ εἰκάζειν λείποιτ᾽. ἂν “καὶ τὰς
αἰσθήσεις meee ἐμπειρίᾳ Kal τινι τριβῆ. ταῖς τῆς στο-
᾿χαστικῆς Line agente δυνάμεσιν, ἃ ἃς πολλοὶ τέχνας ἐπονο-
μάζουσι, μελέτῃ καὶ πόνῳ τὴν ῥώμην ἀπειργασμένας.

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αναγκαιότατα λέγεις.

ΟΣ. Οὐκοῦν ἌΡ μέν που μουσικὴ πρῶτον, τὸ ξύμφω-
γον ἁρμόττουσα οὐ μέτρῳ ἀλλὰ μελέτης στοχασμῷ: καὶ ξύμ-

χάζεσθαι φερομένης θηρεύουσα. ὥστε πολὺ μεμιγμένον ἔχειν

τὸ μὴ σαφές. σμικρὸν δὲ τὸ βέβαιον.

]
5 AP A 9 , A , e , A a
«FATA AVTN Kal αὐλητική, TO METPOV εκάστης χορδῆς τῷ στο-

a eee a

TIPQ. ᾿Αληθέστατα.

ZQ. Kai μὴν ἰατρικήν τε καὶ γεωργίαν Kat κυβερνητικὴν

A A ς ,
καὶ στρατηγικὴν ὡσαύτως εὑρήσομεν ἐχούσας.

πο κι τυ γε.

Σῷ. Τεκτονικὴν δέ ye, οἶμαι, πλείστοις μέτροις τε καὶ
᾿ , , A “»
ὀργάνοις χρωμένην, τὰ πολλὴν ἀκρίβειαν αὐτῇ πορίζοντα
τεχνικωτέραν τῶν πολλών ἐπιστημῶν παρέχεται.

ΠΡΩ. Ty;

2Q. Kara τε ναυπηγίαν καὶ κατ᾽ οἰκοδομίαν καὶ ἐν πολ-

μὲν δή] This is the form of simple
assent; if in place of repeating φαῦλον,
he had said φαυλότατον, μὲν οὖν would
have been added; if his assent had been
restricted, γοῦν.
τὴν ῥώμην ἀπειργασμένας] The pro-
priety of the word ῥώμη depends on
μελέτῃ καὶ πόνῳ, which are used of
training in the palesira. The subject
of προσχρωμένους is the possessors of
the senses, that of ἀπειργασμένας is
δυνάμεις.
πρῶτον] I neither understand this
word, nor can I construe the rest of the
sense without supplying τοιούτων, into
which πρῶτον might be very easily cor-
The common reading, καὶ ξύμ-
maga αὐτῆς αὐλητική, has given just
offence; but neither will αὖ πληκτικὴ re-
move the difficulty, for ξύμπασα excludes

any particular subdivision of music; noris
the reading of the MS. Ven. 2 avn. καὶ
κιθαριστικὴ anything better than one of
its many conjectures; how many these
are, and how generally worthless any
one may convince himself who will go
over a few pages with the collation of
that book. The next difficulty is in
φερομένης, with which nothing can be
done as it stands; perhaps φθεγγομένης
is the right word. Such an addition
would mark that the power of the note
was ascertained empirically from the
sound, and not determined from the
measurement of the string or tube.

τὰ πολλήν] Stallbaum has retained
this reading; the Zurich editors have
adopted the conjectural one of d. The
latter seems to me to make the sentence
more involved than before.

ois osu τῆς νι ξϑλουργιῆν.κ ΤῸ ι γάρ,
καὶ διαβήτη καὶ στάθμῃ καί τινι προσαι eK OWN

TIPQ. Kai πάνυ ye, ὦ Σώκρατες, τοῦδε Nésinvbs τ

ZQ. Θῶμεν τοίνυν διχῇ τὰς λεγομένας τέχνας, τὰς
Howe ik ξυνεπομένας ἐ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις ἐλάττονος ἀκριβείας μὰ
ισχούσας, τὰς δὲ τεκτονικῇ πλείονος. atta

ΠΡΩ. ΚΚείσθω. ᾿ ον

ZQ. Τούτων δὲ ταύτας ἀκριβεστάτας εἶναι τέχνας, ἃς
νῦν δὴ πρώτας εἴπομεν.

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αριθμητικὴν φαίνει μοι λέγειν καὶ ὅσας “μετὰ
ταύτης τέχνας ἐφθέγξω νῦν δή.

ZQ. law μὲν οὖν. ἀλλ᾽, ὦ Πρώταρχε, ἃ dp οὐ διττὰς αὖ

a
rk ae

καὶ ταύτας λεκτέον; ἣ πῶς;

ΠΡΩ. ἸΠοίας δὴ λέγεις;

ZQ. ᾿Αριθμητικὴν πρῶτον ap οὐκ ἄλλην μέν τινα τὴν
τῶν πολλῶν φατέον, ἄλλην δ᾽ αὖ τὴν τών φιλοσοφούντων;

ΠΡΩ. 1Πῇῃ ποτὲ διορισάμενος οὖν ἄλλην, τὴν δὲ ἄλλην

: ἀρῶν

θείη τις ἂν ἀριθμητικήν;

2Q. Οὐ σμικρὸς ὅρος, ὦ Ἱ]ρώταρχε. οἱ μὲν γάρ που
μονάδας ἀνίσους καταριθμοῦνται τῶν περὶ ἀριθμόν, οἷον στρατό-

, A A , A ’ A , « A ‘ ,
meda δύο καὶ βοῦς δύο καὶ δύο τὰ σμικρότατα ἢ καὶ τὰ πάν-
των μέγιστα: οἱ δ᾽ οὐκ ἄν ποτε αὐτοῖς συνακολουθήσειαν, εἰ
4 ὃ 10. e , “A , ὃ , 37. +S:

μὴ μοναῦα Movados εκαστῆς τῶν μυρίων μηδεμίαν ἄλλην ἀλλῆης

διαφέρουσάν τις θήσει.

ΠΡΩ. Kai μάλα γ᾽ εὖ λέγεις οὐ σμικρὰν διαφορὰν τῶν

er δ Γ 4 , / δύ᾽ 4. veh >
περι ἀριθμὸν τευταζόντων, WOTE λόγον εχεὶν υ auTag εἰναι.

2Q. Ti δὲ λογιστικὴ καὶ μετρητικὴ ἡ κατὰ τεκτονικὴν
καὶ κατ᾽ ἐμπορικὴν τῆς κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν γεωμετρίας τε καὶ

λογισμῶν καταμελετωμένων;
a , A ‘
ἢ δύο τιθῶμεν;

κανόνι] κανὼν is the rule for mea-
suring straight lines; τόρνος for curved ;
διαβήτης, the plumb-line ; σταθμὴ is
either a long measuring rule or string;
and mpocaywylov is explained to be the
instrument for reducing warped timber
to straightness. If this is correct, it is
much less κεκομψευμένον than the. rest,
which are scientific helps, while this is
a mere engine of force. Perhaps it was

who give their time to arithmetic.

, ε eek: , ,
TOTEPOV ως Mla εκατερα λεκτέον

an instrument for taking the angles of
curves.

εἰ μὴ μονάδα] Except a man shall
consider no monad to differ from any
other single monad out of all innumerable
monads. ‘There is an intentional redun-
dancy, in order to mark the perfect indif-
ference of every monad from every other,

τευταζόντων] Rep. 521 Ἑ, Tim. go i)

bs p00 dee ade a δύο ἀπξρδχὴν
Poa: eset aig eo a τόν,

Opti οὗ δ᾽ ἕνεκα ταῦτα προηνεγκάμεθα εἰς τὸ

ἐννοεῖς;

“Ta.
ἫΝ ὦμενον.
— ΣΩ,. Δοκεῖ τοίνυν ἔμοιγε οὗτος ὁ λόγος οὐχ ἧττον ἢ ὅτε
δ γώ αὐτὸν ἠρχόμεθα, ταῖς ἡδοναῖς ζῶν ἀντίστροφον ἐν--
“ταῦθα ἐρερηβηκέναι σκοπῶν apa ἐστί τις ἑτέρας ἄλλη καθα-
ρωτέρα ἐπιστήμης ἐπιστήμη, Καθάπερ ἡδονῆς ἡδονή.

ΠΡΩ. Kai μάλα σαφὲς τοῦτό γε, ὅτι ταῦθ᾽ ἕνεκα τού-
τῶν ἐπικεχείρηκεν.

Ἴσως, ἀλλὰ σὲ Αὐυλ δίκαν ἃ ἂν ἀποφήνασθαι τὸ νῦν

35. 2Q. Ti οὖν; ἄρ᾽ οὐκ ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν ἐπ᾽ ἄλλοις
+ ἢ 2 oP , ι 9 ,
ἄλλην τέχνην οὖσαν ἀνεύρισκει σαφεστέραν, καὶ ἀσαφεστέραν
ἄλλην ἄλλης:
TPQ. Πάνυ. μὲν οὗν.
ZQ. Ἔν τούτοις δὲ ap οὔ τινα τέχνην ὡς ὁμώνυμον
φθεγξάμενος, εἰς δόξαν καταστήσας ὡς μιᾶς, πάλιν ὡς δυοῖν
ἐπανερωτᾷ τούτοιν αὐτοῖν τὸ σαφὲς καὶ τὸ καθαρὸν περὶ

ταῦτα πότερον 4 τῶν φιλόσοφούντων ἢ μὴ φιλοσοφούντων

᾽ , + -
ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει;

TIPQ. Kai μάλα δοκεῖ μοι τοῦτο διερωτᾶν.

ΠΡΩ.

προβεβηκέναι]. This is Schleierma-
cher’s emendation for προβεβληκέναι; it
is obvious that no πρόβλημα is put for-
ward. Itis very probable that 7d has
dropped out before ἀντίστροφον.
ἀνευρίσκει] Another reading is dvev-
xew. This would depend upon σαφές ;
ὑ to what purpose should Socrates ask
ἌΝ it was certain that such a thing
had been proved, when his only object
ts to remind Protarchus of a former ad-
sion? ἐν τοῖς ἔμπ'΄. has misled many

to to prefer an imperfect.
a δόξαν καταστήσας] The same ex-

sssion occurs in Crat. 430 B, and

2Q. Ti’ οὖν, ὦ Πρώταρχε, αὐτῷ διδῶμεν ἀπόκρισιν;

Ὦ Σώκρατες, εἰς θαυμαστὸν διαφορᾶς μέγεθος
9 , , 9 “-

εἰς σαφήνειαν προεληλύθαμεν ἐπιστημῶν.

— 2Q. Οὐκοῦν ἀποκρινούμεθα ῥᾷον;

Euthyd. 305 D—His τὴν αἴσθησιν κατα-
στῆσαι. The following part of this sen-
tence is certainly faulty; even Stallbaum
admits that δυοῖν without ὄντοιν is very
suspicious; but his proposal to read
τούτοιν dvrowwould sacrifice a necessary
word and bring another into a wrong
place. I conjecture, εἰς δόξαν καταστήσας
ws μίαν, πάλιν ws δύ᾽ ὄντ᾽ ἐπανερωτᾷ, τού-
τοιν αὐτοῖν τὸ σαφὲς καὶ τὸ καθαρὸν τὸ
περὶ ταῦτα κιτ.ἑ. Ihave supplied τὸ on
the ground of re, which, though omitted
in the Bodleian, is found in several MSS.
περὶ ταῦτα is afterwards more fully ex-
pressed as περὶ μέτρα Te Kal ἀριθμούς.

6

.

TIPQ. To ποῖον;

DQ. Ὡς εἰσὶ δύο ἀρμθμῆφρφήγῳ καὶ δύο μετρητικαὶ
ταύταις ἄλλαι τοιαῦται ξυνεπόμεναι ones τὴν διδυμότ ;
ἔχουσαι ταύτην, ὀνόματος δὲ ἑνὸς meee | Tee

ITPQ. te τύχη ἀγαθῇ τούτοις, οὺς φὴς δά ΣΝ
εἶναι, ταύτην τὴν ἀπόκρισιν, ὥ mae sag

ZQ. Tatras οὖν λέγομεν ἐπιστήμας ἀκριβεῖς μάλιστα q

εἶναι:

ΠΡΩ. law μὲν οὖν.

ΣΩ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ὦ Πρώταργχε, ἀναίνοιτ᾽ ἂν ἡ τοῦ δια-
1 βΌΣΟΡΧ
’ , ΕΣ 4A 47 A 4 ,
λέγεσθαι δύναμις, εἴ τινα προ αὑτῆς ἄλλην κριναιμεν.
TIPQ. Tira δὲ ταύτην αὖ δεῖ λέγειν ; Ϊ
ΣΩ. Δῆλον ὅτι ἣ πᾶσαν τήν γε νῦν λεγομένην γνοίη.
τὴν γὰρ περὶ τὸ ὃν καὶ τὸ ὄντως καὶ τὸ κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἀεὶ
A , + > e a , [2 Led
πεφυκὸς πάντως ἔγωγε οἶμαι ἡγεῖσθαι ξύμπαντας. ὅσοις νοῦ
καὶ σμικρὸν προσήρτηται, μακρῷ ἀληθεστάτην εἶναι γνῶσιν.
S09 Δ A a 9 , ὃ , CAPE q
σὺ δ᾽ ἔτι πῶς τοῦτο, ὦ Πρώταρχε, διακρίνοις av;
TIPQ. Ἤκουον μὲν ἔγωγε, ὦ Σώκρατες. ἑκάστοτε L'op-
Mev ΦΎΩΥ ει P- 4
’ , ε ε A , A , A “ “[’ ἜΣ
γίου πολλάκις, ὡς ἡ τοῦ πείθειν πολὺ διαφέροι πασῶν τεχνῶν"
πάντα γὰρ ὑφ᾽ αὑτῇ δοῦλα δι᾿ ἑκόντων ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διὰ βίας
ποιοῖτο, καὶ μακρῷ ἀρίστη πασῶν εἴη τῶν τεχνῶν. νῦν δ᾽ οὔτε
4 ΕΙΣ A 93 / ’ a 9 ’ Ul
σοὶ οὔτε δὴ ἐκείνῳ βουλοίμην av ἐναντία τίθεσθαι.
ΣΩ. Ta ὅπλα μοι δοκεῖς βουληθεὶς εἰπεῖν aie ute

ἀπολιπεῖν.

περὶ λόγων ὁλκήν] Compare Cratylus,
435 0, Theaetet. 1608 ©, ῥηματῶν τε καὶ
ὀνομάτων & of πολλοί ὅπη ἂν τύχωσιν
ἕλκοντες ἀπορίας ἀλλήλοις παντοδάπας
παρέχουσι.

σὺ δ᾽ ἔτι πῶς] Commonly σὺ δὲ ef
πῶς, in which absurd combination some
have endeavoured to find the force of a
double interrogative.

ὄντως φιλοσοφούντων ὁρμὴν mere β
θείᾳ περὶ μέτρα τε καὶ ἀριθμοὺς διαφέρουσιν. — ent:

ΣΩ. *Eorw ταῦτα κατὰ σέ, καὶ σοὶ δὴ πιστεύ,
ῥοῦντες ἀποκρινώμεθα τοῖς δεινοῖς περὶ λόγων ὁ

ἡ
τὰ ὅπλα] This is a play upon t the
word τίθεσθαι, which Protarchus he iad
used merely in the sense of advancing
an opinion ; but Socrates, taking uy
words ἐναντία τίθεσθαι, replies, ‘ Tt
you were going to say ὅπλα, but you οὖ
ashamed, and dropped the word.
ὅπλα ἐναντία τίθεσθαι is in acie stare, as
in Herod. 1. 62, καὶ ἀντία ἔθεντο τὰ

Τὸ ποῖον ;

BS mo U δὼ 5
Kavos διαλογισάμενοι, μήτ

, κ
τε Kal

ζητητέον.

ὅπλα. There is a further play upon
ἀπολιπεῖν; for ἀπολιπεῖν τὰ ὅπλα would
_ properly mean to desert, but here it is
_ merely to forego or give up the word.
᾿ς τῷ μεγίστη] Not in being the greatest,
_ but in this title, greatest, &. The words
μεγίστη---ὠφελοῦσα ἡμᾶς are taken as
one name, and so become susceptible of
_ the article. Compare Arist. Vesp. 666,
les τούτους, τοὺς οὐχὶ προδώσω τὸν ᾿Αθη-
γαίων κολοσυρτόν.
πρὸς χρείαν] These words are to be
ken as governing τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, to
“surpass as to their use to men. Further
on I have changed ζητοῦμεν into ἐΐζη-
τοῦμεν.
κρατεῖν δ᾽ ἣ εἶπον ἐγὼ νῦν πραγ-
κατείᾳ] The reading of the MSS. and
Ἐ dd. is ὑπάρχειν (for ὑπερέχειν) and
: ρατεῖν, ἣ δ᾽ εἶπον. This has been ad-
duced as an instance of the ἀνακόλουθον,
and it will be well to look closely into
The case of πραγματείᾳ, according
this supposition, will be owing to a
construction intended to be analogous
to that of τῇ μὲν τέχνῇ---διδούς, which
onstruction is lost or changed by reason

@ νῦν ταῦτα ies, bese σοι δοκ.
on αἴτιος ἫΝ τοῦ μὴ καλῶς ὑπολαβεῖν σε;

, ° , , 9 “
φρονήσεως, εἰ ταύτην μαλιστα ἐκ τῶν

inh ? τίς ἐπιστήμη πασῶν hepa τῷ meyiorn καὶ
στη καὶ πλεῖστα ὠφελοῦσα ἡμᾶς, ἀλλὰ τίς ποτε τὸ σαφὲς
; τἀκριβὲς καὶ τὸ ἀληθέστατον ἐπισκοπεῖ, κἂν ἣ σμιήρα καὶ
σ μικρὰ ὀνινᾶσα. τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ὅ νῦν δὴ ἐζηναῦβον: ἀλλ᾽ ὅρα" οὐδὲ
2 ap ἀπεχθήσει Topyia, τῇ μὲν ἐκείνου a aaa τέχνῃ διδοὺς
“πρὸς Exper ay τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ᾿βανεῖν δ᾽ ἢ εἶπον ἐγὼ νῦν mp:
᾿ματείᾳ:" καθάπερ τοῦ λευκοῦ πέρι τότε ἔλεγον, Kav εἰ σμικρόν,
᾿ .αθαρὸν δὲ εἴη, τοῦ πολλοῦ καὶ μὴ τοιούτου διαφέρειν τούτῳ
γ᾽ αὐτῷ τῷ ἀληθεστάτῳ. καὶ νῦν δὴ σφόδρα διανοηθέντες καὶ
εἴς τινας ὠφελείας ἐπιστημῶν
{ βλέψαντες μήτε τινὰς εὐδοκιμίας, ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τις πέφυκε τῆς ψυ-
Xs ἡμῶν δύναμις ἐρᾶν τε τοῦ ἀληθοῦς καὶ πάντα ἕνεκα τούτου

a , , , , A \ A
πράττειν, ταὐτην εἴπωμεν, διερευνησάμενοι TO καθαρὸν νου

Ὁ. Ἢ
εἰκοτήτῶν

3 A 0 a aA “, ξ Ὁ , , CoA
EKTYTVUAL φαῖμεν ἀν ἢ τινα ετερᾶν ταυτῆς κυριωτέραν ημιν

of the long parenthesis, so that when
this ends, a new construction, ταύτην
εἴπωμεν, is substituted. A conclusive
answer to all these subtleties is, that not
only the construction is different, but
the sense is altogether unlike. For in
the first part, if completed, we should
expect if yow assign, or you ought to
assign, or something which implies a
claim for νοῦς: but in the second part
is a call on Protarchus to declare what
he really thinks about νοῦς (ταύτην εἴπω-
μεν x.T.é.). Another objection to the
passage as it stands is the awkwardness
of διδοὺς ὑπάρχειν κρατεῖν, which means
διδοὺς κρατεῖν, and nothing more. All
these difficulties are removed by so
simple a process that I have not hesi-
tated to introduce it into the text, and
to change the punctuation accordingly.

ταύτῃ εὕπωμεν] The common reading
is ταύτην, but this, with εἰ ταύτην pai-
μεν ἂν to follow it, is utterly irrecon-
cileable with the Platonic neatness;
ταύτῃ, on the contrary, is almost neces-
sary for the sense, as summing up εἴ τις
πέφυκε κ. τ. ἑ.

6—2

ὃς . ‘ _
ats

ad

<

τινα ἄλλην pn iy ἢ ΕΝ ri

᾿ λον ἢ ἢ ταύτην.

ΣΏΩ. *Ap’ οὖν ἐννοήσαϊ τὸ rouble εἴρηκας, ©
ὡς αἱ πολλαὶ τέχναι καὶ ὅσαι περὶ ταῦτα πεπόνηνται;’
μὲν δόξαις χρῶνται καὶ τὰ περὶ δόξαν, ‘rradet é
pane’ : εἴτε καὶ περὶ picewe ἡγεῖταί τις
ὅτι τὰ περὶ τὸν κόσμον τόνδε, ὅπη τε γέγονε καὶ ὅπῇ πάσχει
τι καὶ ὅπη ποιεῖ, ταῦτα ζητεῖ διὰ βίου ; φαῖμεν ἂν ταῦτα, ἢ

πῶς ;

TPQ. οὕτως.

ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν οὐ περὶ τὰ ὄντα ἀεί, περὶ δὲ τὰ eae
καὶ γενησόμενα καὶ γεγονότα ἡμῶν ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνήρηται τὸν

πόνον.

TIPQ. ᾿Αληθέστατα.

, > A “ἃ - ~ 9 , ν q

2Q. Τούτων οὖν τι cades av φαῖμεν τῆ ἀκριβεστατῆ

’ ’ ’ ΓΙ ἢ ” ὴλ , ᾿ 4. <I
ἀληθείᾳ γίγνεσθαι, ὧν μήτε ἔσχε μηδὲν πώποτε κατὰ ταῦτα
th? Ψ , 9 A A A x “
μήθ᾽ ἕξει μήτε εἰς τὸ νῦν παρὸν ἔχει ;

ἹΡΏΩ. Kai πῶς;

pa Περὶ οὖν τὰ μὴ κεκτημένα βεβαιότητα μηδ᾽ ἡντινοῦν
ω 59 ’ , 4 δ. oa A,» @ Aus τς
πῶς av ποτε βέβαιον γίγνοιθ᾽ ἡμῖν Kat ὁτιοῦν;
ΠΡΩ. Ofua μὲν οὐδαμῶς.

~ .@
=Q. Οὐδ᾽ ἄρα vous οὐδέ τις ἐπιστήμη περὶ αὐτά ἐστι το

9 , ΕΝ
ἀληθέστατον ἔχουσα.

TIPQ. Odxovy εἰκός γε.

90. ΣΏ. Tov μὲν δὴ σὲ καὶ ἐμὲ καὶ Τ᾽οργίαν καὶ Pidy-

πεπόνηνται] This word and éuvrera-
μένως (Schiitz’s correction for ξυντεταγ-
μένως) explain each other. He is evi-
dently speaking of pursuits which re-
quire great assiduity; but what these
are it is difficult to say, for ταῦτα is
referable to nothing beforementioned ;
Stallbaum explains it as similar to the
passages in the Phado, where ταῦτα is
used of visible things; but this would
at least include τὸ περὶ φύσεως ζητεῖν,
which is here spoken of as a distinct
branch. The solution of the whole diffi-
culty seems to lie in a very slight change
—ws al πολλαὶ τέχναι καὶ ὅσοι περὶ

Ὡητεῖν,. ;

ταῦτας πεπόνηνται---Υ which we have
the arts mentioned first, because they
are the subject; but as the following
remark turns on the means emplo:
it is convenient to mention the pers
who follow the arts, to avoid the am
wardness of saying that the arts
selves χρῶνται δόξαις, or ζητοῦσι τῶ
δόξαν. ᾿

τὸν μὲν δὴ σὲ καὶ ἐμέ] Stall
properly explains this article as bri
the persons into a stronger co
with the important subject. It ἢ
fact, the force of turning the first
second persons into a third, or more pi

IBO> )

πο; a 8 ἐᾶν, τόδε δὲ διαμαρτύρασθαι" τῷ
TS ποῖον: ~
Ὥνἢ περὶ ἐκεῖνα ἔσθ᾽ ἡμῖν τό τε βέβαιον καὶ τὸ
αθ καὶ τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ὃ δὴ ae yorente “inl ri περὶ τὰ
del εὐϑας τὰ αὐτὰ ὡσαύτως ἀμικτότατά ἔχοντα; ἢ δεύτερ᾽ ὅσ᾽
ἐκείνων ὅτι μάλιστ᾽ ἐστὶ ξυγγενῆ: τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα πάντα δεύτερά
σε καὶ ὕστερα λεκτέον.
ΠΡΩ, ᾿Αληθέστατα λέγεις.
2Q. Ta δὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα κάλλιστα ἄρ᾽
οὐ τοῖς καλλίστοις δικαιότατον ἀπονέμειν ;
ΠΡΩ. Hikes γε.
ZQ. Οὐκοῦν νοῦς ἐστὶ καὶ φρόνησις ad γ᾽ ἄν τις τιμήσειε
᾿ς μάλιστα ὀνόματα;
ΠΡΩ. Nai.
ΣΩ. Ταῦτ᾽ ἄρα ἐν ταῖς περὶ τὸ ὃν ὄντως ἐννοίαις ἔστιν
ἀπηκριβωμένα ὀρθῶς κείμενα καλεῖσθαι.
ITPQ. Πάνυ μὲν οὖν.
2Q. Kat μὴν d γε εἰς τὴν κρίσιν ἐγὼ τότε παρεσχόμην,
οὐκ ἄλλ᾽ ἐστὶν ἢ ταῦτα τὰ ὀνόματα.
HPQ. Τὶ μήν, 6 Σώκρατες;
ba ZQ. Elev τὸ μὲν δὴ φρονήσεώς τε καὶ ἡδονῆς πέρι πρὸς
| τὴν ἀλλήλων μίξιν εἴ τις φαίη καθαπερεὶ δημιουργοῖς ἡμῖν, ἐξ
| ὧν ἢ ἐν οἷς δεῖ δημιουργεῖν τι; παρακεῖσθαι, καλῶς ἂν τῷ λόγῳ

Ω ,
ἀπεικαζοι.

TPQ. Kai pada.

it a

ly still, of abstracting the individual
τὴ his personality, and making a mere
somebody of him.

| Setrep’ ὅσ᾽ ἐκείνων ---ξυγγενῆ] The
( Mss. have δεύτερος and ξυγγενές. The
Zurich editors have changed the former
ὯΝ δευτέρως, which is at least more
rational than Stallbaum’s defence of it
ws a parenthetical proverb with πλοῦς
end derstood. We may here see two com-
1 sources of corruption in MSS,—

ZQ. To δὴ μετὰ ταῦτα ap οὐ μιγνύναι ἐπιχειρητέον 5
HPQ. Ti μήν; :

the neglect of the apostrophus and the
changing of terminations to suit some
imaginary concord or regimen; in this
manner ξυγγενῇ was written ξυγγενὲς to
bring it into agreement with ὅ,τι.

ἐξ ὧν ἐν ἢ ots] The first is the mate-
rial, considered as a kind of secondary
cause, out of which things are produced ;
the second, the same material considered
as the substance in which the workman
realizes his art.

ἐφρὺς ἀρθδτιβὸν ἃ ἂν ἔχοι:
—, Ta suns ᾿

δοκεῖ ἔχειν, τὸ καὶ os καὶ τρὶς TO γε « cahiae a ὅρον πα

τῷ λόγῳ δεῖν. — | Ts
HPQ. Τὶ μήν; = |
ZQ. Φέρε δὴ πρὸς Διός: οἶμαι yap οὕτω πως τὰ

λεχθέντα ῥηθῆναι. |
TPQ. Πῶς;

>a. PiAnBos φησι τὴν ἡδονὴν σκοπὸν ὀρθὸν πᾶσι ζώο
γεγονέναι καὶ δεῖν πάντας τούτου στοχάζεσθαι; καὶ δὴ καὶ
τἀγαθὸν τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ εἶναι ξύμπασι, καὶ δύο ὀνόματα, ἀγαθὸν.
καὶ ἡδύ, ἑνί τινι καὶ φύσει μιᾷ τούτω ὀρθῶς τεθέντ᾽ ἔχειν.
Σωκράτης δὲ πρῶτον μὲν οὔ φησι τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι, δύο δὲ καθάπερ,
τὰ ὀνόματα. καὶ τό τε ἀγαθὸν καὶ τὸ ἡδὺ διάφορον ἀλλήλων
ret ἔχειν, pines δὲ μέτοχον εἶναι τῆς τοῦ aye eat Bee
τὴν φρόνησιν 3 ἢ τὴν ἡδονήν. οὐ ταῦτ᾽ ἔστὶ τε καὶ ἣν τὰ τότε
λεγόμενα, ῶ Πρώταρχε;: '

ITPQ. Σφόδρα μὲν οὖν. |

ZQ. Οὐκοῦν καὶ τόδε καὶ τότε καὶ viv ἡμῖν dv Evvowodo- —
yotTo 5 : :

TPQ. To ποῖον: .

2Q. Τὴν τἀγαθοῦ διαφέρειν φύσιν τῷδε τῶν Dowd

TWIPQ. Tin; |

eae, 4h παρείη τοῦτ᾽ ἀεὶ τῶν ζώων διὰ τέλους πάντως,
καὶ πάντη, μηδενὸς ἑ ἀτερὺν ποτὲ ἔτι προσδεῖσθαι, τὸ δὲ ἡ ἱκανὸν
τελεώτατον & ἔχειν. ou~x οὕτως ;

TPQ. Οὕτω μὲν οὖν.

2Q. Οὐκοῦν τῷ λόγῳ ἐπειράθημεν χωρὶς ἑκάτερον ἑκατές,
a θέντες εἰς τὸν βίαν ἑκάστων, ἄμικτον μὲν ἡδονὴν φρο- 0-
4 pt φρόνησιν δὲ ὡσαύτως ἡδονῆς μηδὲ τὸ σμικρότατον J
EXOouTaY 5 mes ail

ἑνί τινι Kal φύσει μιᾷ] That these ἐκαραδήμένειν ,ϑέντον]. We made
two are rightly applied to a certain one | experiment of placing, &e. Stall
(ἕν τι) and to a sengle genus (φύσις | compares the expression saad above, é
μία). σοὶ πειρώμεθα βασανίζοντες ταῦγαι a

ΕἾ Hy ταῦτα. ν ᾿

3. - Μῶν οὖν ἡμῖν αὐτῶν τότε πότερον ἱκανὸν ἔδοξεν
εἶναί τῷ 5

— TPQ. ΚΚαὶ πῶς:

ee « ΠΣ, ᾽ δέ γε παρηνέχθημέν τι τότε, νῦν ὁστισοῦν
ie 4 τι δὲν Fe , \ plied Ὁ
ἐπαναλαβὼν ὀρθότερον εἰπάτω, μνήμην καὶ φρόνησιν καὶ ἐπι-
a , A aN 67 oo wn 7. A ἰδέ , AQ A
στήμην καὶ ἀληθῆ δόξαν τῆς αὐτῆς ἰδέας τιθέμενος, καὶ σκοπῶν
9 9 , , > ΚΡ ς 4 ε ἴω > a ,
εἴ τις ἄνευ τούτων δέξαιτ᾽ ἄν οἱ Kat ὁτιοῦν εἶναι ἡ γίγνεσθαι,
μὴ ὅτι δή γε ἡδονήν, εἴθ᾽ ὡς πλείστην εἴθ᾽ ὡς σφοδροτάτην,
εἰ μήτε ἀληθῶς δοξαζοι χαίρειν, μήτε τὸ παράπαν γιγνώσκοι
τί ποτε πέπονθε πάθος, μήτ᾽ αὖ μνήμην τοῦ πάθους μηδ᾽
e a , 4 mR ON \ , Α Α ’ 4
ὁντινοῦν χρόνον ἔχοι. ταὐτὰ δὲ λέγω καὶ περὶ φρονήσεως, εἴ

+ Ul ε A 4 A , ’ 9 ἃ ,
Tis ἄνευ πάσης ἡδονῆς Kal τῆς βραχυτάτης δέξαιτ᾽ ἂν φρόνησιν
»᾿ ἴω Di , e la «ἷ , ς κ 4
ἔχειν μᾶλλον ἢ μετά τινων ἡδονῶν, ἢ πάσας ἡδονὰς χωρὶς
φρονήσεως μᾶλλον ἢ μετὰ φρονήσεως αὖ τινός.

TIPQ. Οὐκ ἔστιν, ὦ Σώκρατες" ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν δεῖ ταῦτά γε
τ΄ πολλάκις ἐπερωτᾶν.

Σ. Οὐκοῦν τό γε τέλεον καὶ πᾶσιν αἱρετὸν καὶ τὸ παν-

Ρ ° δι Δ, A ’ Von

τάπασιν ἀγαθὸν οὐδέτερον ἂν τούτων εἴη:

IPQ. Πῶς γὰρ av;

2Q. To τοίνυν ἀγαθὸν ἤτοι σαφῶς ἢ καί τινα τύπον

9 - , 6 5 4 Ne, rn Φ ὃ ,
αὐτοῦ ληπτέον. ἵν οπερ ἐλέγομεν δευτερεῖα τῷ OWTOMEV

Se

ἔχωμεν.
ΠΡΩ. ᾿Ορθότατα λέγεις.
ZQ. Οὐκοῦν ὁδὸν μέν τινα ἐπὶ τἀγαθὸν εἰλήφαμεν:
ΠΡΩ. Τίνα;

+ ae Καθάπερ εἴ τίς τινα ἄνθρωπον ζητῶν τὴν οἴκησιν

-τος-

τ

| A SE σοὶ στο “πὶ
ee =

a 9 ω oe 9 9 aA ’ 4 9 a , δή Ἂ
πρῶτον ὀρθῶς, ἵν᾽ οἰκεῖ, πυθοιτ᾽ αὐτοῦ, μέγα τι δή που πρὸς

ο΄ χὴν εὕρεσιν ἂν ἔχοι τοῦ ζητουμένου.
TPQ. Iles δ᾽ οὔ:

ZQ. Kai νῦν δή τις λόγος ἐμήνυσεν ἡμῖν, ὥσπερ καὶ κατ᾽

ς , A A εἰ ~ ς , , ° , ° 9 9 lal
APXAS, μή ζητεῖν εν τῷ αμίκτῷ βίῳ τἀγαθόν ἀλλ᾽ ev τῷ

ae ae

μικτῳ.

ἢ πάσας ἡδονάς] The first alterna- | ἢ ἐνδεῖ τι ἐκείνου τῷ μὴ τοιοῦτον εἶναι
tive is again repeated after the second; | οἷον τὸ ἴσον, ἢ οὐδέν.
so in Phed. 74 Ὁ, dpa φαίνεται ἡμῖν καὶ viv δή τις λόγος] We must not
οὕτως toa εἶναι ὥσπερ αὐτὸ ὃ ἔστιν ἴσον, | take νῦν δὴ together, which would have

bi x Ta ye oS ἢ sa

130, ᾿Ἐλαὶς μὴν κείν ἐν: τῷ MAX
pave ἔσεσθαι φανερώτερον ἢ ἐν τῷ μή;
IPQ. [Πολύ γε. ine |
=Q. Τοῖς δὴ θεοῖς, ὦ Hpserapxes εὐχόμενοι κε Mea :

εἴτε Διόνυσος εἴτε ἭΦαιστος εἴθ᾽ ὅστις θεῶν RE “

4 of ~ , yt ἊΣ : ,
τιμὴν εἴληχε τῆς συγκράσεως. τ ὦ
3 ~~" Ν
ΠΡΩ. Ilaw μὲν οὖν. ΩΣ

ΣΏ. Καὶ μὴν καθάπερ ἡμῖν οἰνοχόοις τισὶ παρεστᾶσι —
κρῆναι, μέλιτος μὲν ἄν ἀπεικάζοι. τις τὴν τῆς ἡδονῆξη τὴν δὲ
τῆς ἐφροθήσιος repartee καὶ ἄοινον αὐστηροῦ καὶ ὑγιεινοῦ
τινὸς ὕδατος" ἃς πρόθυμησεον Ἢ ὡς κάλλιστα συμμιγνύναι. Ἢ

IIPQ. Iles γὰρ οὔ: ς

ΣΩ. Φέρε δὴ πρότερον" dpa πᾶσαν ἡδονὴν πάση φρο-
νήσει μιγνύντες τοῦ καλῶς ἂν μάλιστα ἐπιτύχοιμεν;

TPQ. Ἴσως.

2Q. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀσφαλές: ἣ δὲ ἀκινδυνότερον ἂν μιγνύοι-
μεν. δόξαν μοι δοκῶ τινὰ ἀποφήνασθαι ἄν.

TIPO? Adye-ctia.

ZQ. Ἐν ἡμῖν ἡδονή τε ἀληθῶς, ὡς οἰόμεθα, μᾶλλον ἑτέ-

5, 4 A A ’ , ° ’ ὰ
ρας ἄλλη, Kat δὴ καὶ τέχνη τεχνῆς ἀκριβεστέρα;
TIPQ. Πῶς γὰρ οὔ;
2Q. Kat ἐπιστήμη δὴ ἐπιστήμης διάφορος, ἡ μὲν ἐπὶ τὰ
, 4 9 , 5 , ε δὲ 4“ "4, A ,
γιγνόμενα Kat ἀπολλύμενα ἀποβλέπουσα, ἡ δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ μήτε
γιγνόμενα μήτε ἀπολλύμενα, κατὰ ταὐτὰ δὲ ὡσαύτως ὄντα
ἀεί. ταύτην εἰς τὸ ἀληθὲς ἐπισκοπούμενοι ἡγησάμεθα ἐκείνης
ἀληθεστέραν εἶναι.

TPQ. Taw μὲν οὖν ὀρθῶς.

ZQ. Οὐκοῦν εἰς τἀληθέστατα τμήματα ἑκατέρας ἴδωμεν
the sense of ὀλίγον ἔμπροσθεν, but δή Ts, | omitted, there is no difficulty in these
a certain reason. words, except i in ws οἰόμεθα, of which I

παρεστᾶσι κρῆναι] Winckelmann, in | confess I can make nothing. One plea-
his preface, observes that this is an allu- | swre was more truly such than another,
sion to the libations in honour of the | and so likewise one art was more ss §
Eumenides and other divinities, which than another.
consisted of water and honey. Compare οὐκοῦν εἰς τἀληθέστατα--- ἴδωμεν] —
Asch, Zum. 107, Soph, (ἃ. Col. ggand , The MSS. have εἰ tor els and μόνο J
471, with the Scholiast. which it is impossible to make any

ἣν ἡμῖν ages ΚΑ ἀληθῶς. If we sense. The correction is rendered cer- ἢ
retain μᾶλλον, which the Bodleian has tain by Protarchus’ answer.

'
* fe
4

\ATONOE @IAHBOS. 6 80

ον νμμίξωντει, ἃ apa ἱκανὰ ταῦτα et agg “Tov é ayes
i τι βίον ἀπεργασάμενα παρέχειν ἡμῖν, ἤ τινος ἔτι
ἰ προσδεύμεθε καὶ τῶν μὴ τοιούτων;

= TIPQ. μοὶ γοῦν δοκεῖ δρᾶν οὕτως.

98. 2Q. Ἔστω δή τις ἡμῖν ΡΨ. ἄνθρωπος. αὐτῆς πέρι
δικαιοσύνης, ὅ ὅ τι ἔστι, καὶ λόγον er ἑπόμενον τῷ νοεῖν, καὶ
δὴ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων πάντων τῶν ὄντων ὡσαύτως διανοού-
μενος:

ΠΡΩ. Ἔστω γὰρ οὖν.

ZQ. ἾΔρ᾽ οὖν οὗτος ἱκανῶς ἐπιστήμης ἕξει κύκλου μὲν καὶ
epepas αὐτῆς τῆς θείας τὸν λόγον Px τὴν δὲ ihe asin

| ᾿ ταύτην σφαῖραν καὶ τοὺς κύκλους τούτους ἀφνοῶν καὶ χρώ-
| μενος ἐν οἰκοδομίᾳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὁμοίως κανόσι καὶ τοῖς
| κύκλοις:

HPQ. ΓΤελοίαν διάθεσιν ἡμῶν, ὦ Pilko bess ev ταῖς θείαις
οὖσαν μόνον ἐπιστήμαις λέγομεν.

ZQ. Ids piss ἢ τοῦ Ψευδοῦς κανόνος ἅμα Kat τοῦ
κύκλου τὴν οὐ βέβαιον οὐδὲ καθαρὰν τέχνην ἐμβλητέον κοινῆ
καὶ συγκρατέον;

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αναγκαῖον γάρ, εἰ μέλλει τις ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν

| ἑκάστοτε ἐξευρήσειν οἴκαδε.
| 2Q. °H καὶ μουσικήν, ἣν ὀλίγον ἔμπροσθεν ἔφαμεν 'στο-
Ϊ χαἀσεώς τε καὶ μιμήσεως μεστὴν οὖσαν καθαρότητος ἐνδεῖν:
Ι TIPQ. ᾿Αναγκαῖον φαίνεται ἔμοιγε, εἴπερ γε ἡμῶν 6 βίος
᾿ ἔσται καὶ ὁπωσοῦν ποτὲ βίος.
᾿ ZQ. Βούλει δῆτα, ὥσπερ θυρωρὸς ὑπ᾽ ὄχλου τις ὠθού-
Ι μενος καὶ βιαζόμενος, ἡττηθεὶς ἀναπετάσας τὰς θύρας ἀφῶ
πάσας τὰς ἐπιστήμας εἰσρεῖν καὶ μίγνυσθαι ὁμοῦ καθαρᾷ τὴν
ἐνδεεστέραν;

TIPQ. Οὔκουν ἔγωγε οἶδα, ὦ Σώκρατες, 6 τί τις dv βλά-
πτοιτὸ πάσας λαβὼν τὰς ἄλλας ἐπιστήμας, ἔχων τὰς πρώτας.

2ZQ. Μεθιῶ δὴ τὰς ξυμπάσας ῥεῖν εἰς τὴν τῆς Ὁμήρου
καὶ μάλα ποιητικῆς μισγαγκείας ὑποδοχήν;

καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὁμοίως} Many notes | using other pattern figures in the same

have been written in defence and expla- | manner as the circles. Compare below,

nation of these words, If they are cor- | Ταὐτὸν καὶ ἀλήθεια, the same as truth.
rect, we must understand by them, μισγαγκείας] Hom, J/. 4. 452, ws ὅτε

μόρια θην ταν οὐκ gies ἡμῖν, ἀλλὰ δὰ τὸ
πᾶν ἐπιστήμην εἰς ταὐτὸν μεθεῖμεν ἀθρόας καὶ mpd
ἡδονῶν.

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αληθέστατα λέγεις.

ΣΑΣ Ὥρα δὴ βουλεύεσθαι νῷν καὶ wept τῶν ἡδονῶν,
πότερα καὶ ταύτας πάσας ἀθρόας ἀφετέον ἢ 4] καὶ τούτων —-
μεθετέον ἡμῖν ὅσαι ἀληθεῖς. a

IIPQ. [Πολύ τι διαφέρει πρός γε sede πρώτας τὰς Ἢ
ἀληθεῖς ἀφεῖναι. :

ZQ. Μεθείσθων δή. τί δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα; ἄρ᾽ οὐκ εἰ μέν
τινες ἀναγκαῖαι, καθέτου ἐκεῖ, Contr oy καὶ ταύτας:

TIPQ. Tis ous τάς γε ἀῤαγκαξδ δήπουθεν.

ZQ. Ei δέ γε καὶ καθάπερ τὰς τέχνας πάσας ἀβχαβές τε
καὶ ὠφέλιμον ἢ ἣν ἐπίστασθαι διὰ βίου, καὶ νῦν δὴ ταὐτὰ λέγο-

4 ~ ὃ ~ 4 , ὃ ‘ "δ ὃ A ,
μεν περὶ τῶν ἡδονῶν, εἴπερ πάσας ἡδονὰς ἥδεσθαι διὰ βίου
’ e al 9 A ἢ. 2 A e , ,
συμφέρον τε ἡμῖν ἐστὶ Kat ἀβλαβὲς ἅπασι; πάσας ξυγκρατέον.

ΠΡΩ. [Πῶς οὖν δὴ περὶ αὐτῶν τούτων λέγωμεν; καὶ πῶς
ποιῶμεν:

ZQ. Οὐχ ἡμᾶς, ὦ ΠΡρώταρχε; διερωτᾶν χρή. τὰς ἡδονὰς
δὲ αὐτὰς καὶ τὰς φρονήσεις, διαπυνθανομένους τὸ τοιόνδε
ἀλλήλων πέρι. .

ΠΡΩ. To ποῖον;

ZQ. “Ὦ φίλαι, εἴτε ἡδονὰς ὑμᾶς χρὴ προσαγορεύειν εἴτε
9 e “ 3 ’ “ 9 “ὁ , 9 - A
ἄλλῳ ὁτῳοῦν OVOMATL, μῶν οὐκ ἂν δέξαισθε οἰκεῖν μετὰ φρο-
νήσεως πάσης ἢ χωρὶς τοῦ φρονεῖν; Οἶμαι μὲν πρὸς ταῦτα
τόδ᾽ αὐτὰς ἀναγκαιότατον εἶναι λέγειν.

IPQ. To ποῖον;

DQ. "Orn καθάπερ ἐμκαρΑ ΘΝ, ἐῤῥήθη, τὸ μόνον καὶ
ἔρημον εἰλικρινὲς εἶναί τι γένος οὔτε πάνυ τι δυνατὸν οὔτ᾽
᾽ , A A e , “A a a * δ
ὠφέλιμον: πάντων ye μὴν ἡγούμεθα γενῶν ἀριστον ἕν ἀνθ᾽
χείμαῤῥοί ποταμοὶ κατ᾽ ὄρεσφι péovres’ Hs | as it is now written. The sense requires ἡ
μισγάγκειαν εν, ὄβριμον ὕδωρ. οἷς yap—for the parts of the true

sciences,
ὡς γὰρ διενοήθημεν) It is vain to | with which we first proposed to mingle —
look for any coherence in this passage | them, were not sufficient for us, =a

— σς (Ὁ) εν a i, coe =

or
: ὃς συνοικεῖν ἡμῖν τὸ τοῦ γιγνώσκειν τἄλλα τε πάντα καὶ
Irhv αὖ τίν᾽ ἡμῶν τελέως εἰς δύναμιν ἑ ἑκάστην.
TPQ. Kai καλῶς γε εἰρήκατε τὰ νῦν, φήσομεν.
“ , wn
ΣΩ. ᾿Ορθῶς. πάλιν τοίνυν μετὰ τοῦτο τὴν φρόνησιν καὶ
τὸν νοῦν ἀνερωτητέον. “Ap ἡδονῶν τι προσδεῖσθε ἐν τῇ E
᾿ ρ big - 7 ροσδεῖσθε ἐν TH Evy-
a. “ A A
κράσει ; φαῖμεν av av Tov νοῦν Te Kal τὴν φρόνησιν ἀνερω-
“A II , a A + ὃ ae
τῶντες. οίων, φαῖεν ἂν lows, ἡδονῶν ;
TIPQ. = Elkos.
ε , ° , , A “
2Q. ὋὉ dé ¥ ἡμέτερος λόγος μετὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ὅδε.
Tl ᾿ wi ἐδ θέ fo ᾧ “8 - Ἄ ἢ SR eG
pos ταῖς ἀληθέσιν ἐκείναις ἡδοναῖς, φήσομεν, ap’ ἔτι προσ-
ὃ ΄- θ᾽ ς a a τ, , ὃ Ν ‘4 5 4 4
cic ® ὑμῖν τὰς μεγίστας ἡδονὰς Evvoikous εἶναι καὶ τὰς σφοὸ-
= ~ > -"
ροτάτας: Καὶ πῶς, ὦ Σώκρατες: φαῖεν ἄν, αἵ γ᾽ ἐμποδι-
, ' A 4
σματὰ τε μυρία ἡμῖν ἔχουσι, τὰς ψυχὰς ἐν αἷς οἰκοῦμεν ταράτ-
τουσαι διὰ μανικὰς ἡδονάς, καὶ γίγνεσθαί τε ἡμᾶς τὴν ἀρχὴν
οὐκ ἐῶσι τά τε γιγνόμενα ἡμῶν τέκνα ὡς τὸ πολύ, δι᾿ ἀμέ-
λειαν λήθην ἐμποιοῦσαι, παντάπασι διαφθείρουσιν ; ἄλλας δὲ
ὃ \ ° a 8 Α ἃ > \ b] ’ =
ἡδονὰς ἀληθεῖς καὶ καθαρὰς ἃς εἶπες, σχεδὸν οἰκείας ἡμῖν
νόμιζε, καὶ πρὸς ταύταις τὰς μεθ᾽ ὑγιείας καὶ τοῦ σωφρονεῖν,
A on 4 , ο ~ ε , , ~ 9 4
καὶ δὴ καὶ ξυμπάσης ἀρετῆς ὁπόσαι καθάπερ θεοῦ ὀπαδοὶ γι-
γνόμεναι αὐτῇ ξυνακολουθοῦσι πάντη, ταύτας μίγνυ" τὰς δ᾽
Bey! ey: ’ A “ oS , e , ,
Gael μετ᾽ ἀφροσύνης Kat τῆς ἄλλης κακίας ἐπομένας πολλή που
ἀλογία τῷ νῷ μιγνύναι τὸν βουλόμενον ὅ τι καλλίστην ἰδόντα
, ~ lal
καὶ ἀστασιαστοτάτην μίξιν καὶ κρᾶσιν ἐν ταύτη μαθεῖν πει-
ἴω a +S ο θ , A ~ A , ᾿] +
ρᾶσθαι, τι ποτε ἔν Te ἀνθρώπῳ Kal Τῷ παντὶ πέφυκεν ἀγαθὸν
Ἁ , δέ Ἂν... ἢ > , , 2h 3 > ᾽ ’
καὶ τίνα ἰδέαν αὐτὴν εἶναί ποτε μαντευτέον. “Ap’ οὐκ ἐμφρό-
νως ταῦτα καὶ ἐχόντως ἑαυτὸν τὸν νοῦν φήσομεν ὑπέρ τε
ς lad 4 , 4 ὃ , 9 ~ ° , . A ΄
αὑτοῦ καὶ μνήμης καὶ ers ὀρθῆς ἀποκρίνασθαι τὰ νῦν
ῥηθέντα:
ΠΡΩ. Παντάπασι μὲν οὖν.
ZQ. ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν καὶ τόδε γε ἀναγκαῖον, καὶ οὐκ ἄλλως ἄν
ποτε γένοιτο οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἕν.

καὶ αὐτὴν αὖ τιν᾽ ἡμῶν--ἑκάστην]
The common reading is καὶ αὖ τὴν αὐτήν,
but the Bodleian has καὶ τὴν αὐτήν.
There is no example of αὖ being thus
placed, and τὴν before αὐτὴν changes the
signification of the word from what is
required. αὐτὴν ἑκάστην ἡμῶν is, each
one of us by herself; τινὰ is added be-

ΕΣ

cause a man need not know all plea-
sures, but this or that as they occur.
Compare above, p. 18 B, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀρι-
Oudv αὖ τινὰ πλῆθος ἕκαστον ἔχοντά τι
κατανοεῖν.

Mui ἀρχήν] At the first—t.e., at
all,

ἐχόντως ἑαυτόν] ὁ. 6., νοῦν ἐχόντως.

ἼΣΩ. | τῶν μὴ μίξομεν ἀλήθιιάνς ote: a ποτ
One γίγνοιτο οὐδ᾽ ay γοβοοὶ Gin. ~~ Ἢ ἊΝ age
TPQ. [Πῶς yap av; a
40. DQ. Οὐδαμῶς. ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τινος ἔτι xpocke τῇ συ
σει ταύτη, λέψενε σύ τε καὶ Φίληβος. ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ καθα:
κόσμος τις ἀσώματος ἄρξων καλῶς ἐμψύχου σώματος ὃ νῦν͵
λόγος ἀπειργάσθαι pantee | ὌΝ
ΠΡΩ. Kai ἐμοὶ τοίνυν, ὦ δυδο βαφὴν οὕτω ἌΔΙΚΑ Dect

“νὰ ς We
, ®&
ἮΝ te

ae J

a
ἢ é

06x Oat. }
POR “Ap οὖν ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖς TOU ἀγαθοῦ νῦν ἤδη προθύροις a
καὶ τῆς οἰκήσεως ἐφεστάναι τῆς τοῦ τοιούτου λέγοντες ἴ ἴσως
ὀρθῶς ἄν τινα τρόπον φαῖμεν; ,
ΠΡΩ. Ἐμοὶ νοῦς δοκεῖ. 18
2Q. Ti δῆτα ἐν τῇ ξυμμίξει τιμιώτατον ἅμα καὶ nadie
αἴτιον εἶναι δόξειεν av ἡμῖν τοῦ πᾶσι γεγονέναι προσφιλῆ τὴν
τοιαύτην διάθεσιν ; τοῦτο γὰρ ἰδόντες μετὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπισκεψό-
μεθα, εἴθ᾽ ἡδονῇ εἴτε τῷ νῷ προσφυέστερον καὶ οἰκειότερον ἐν

τῷ παντὶ ξυνέστηκεν.
ΠΡΩ.

φορώτατον.

a

Ὀρθῶς: τοῦτο γὰρ εἰς τὴν κρίσιν ἡμῖν ἐστὶ ἕξυμ-

ZQ. Kai nad καὶ ξυμπάσης ¥ μίξεως οὐ χαλεπϑὴ ἰδεῖν

τὴν αἰτίαν, δι᾽ ἣν 7 παντὸς ἀξία γίγνεται ἡτισοῦν ἢ τὸ παρά-

παν οὐδενός.

ΠΡΩ. [Πῶς ty

κόσμος Tis ἀσώματος] Socrates is
not speaking of his argument as being
completed, but of the subject of it, the
combination of all which admits of com-
bination, by which man’s life is to be
governed, as the universe is governed
by the invisible order which is in it.

*Ap’ οὖν ἐπὶ μέν] ᾿Εφεστάναι with a
genitive reminds one of the passage in
Medea, 134, ἐπ᾽ ἀμφιπύλου yap ἔσω
μελάθρου γόον ἔκλυον, where Elmsley
takes ἀμφιπύλου as a substantive, com-
paring Herodotus, 5, 92, ἐπὶ τῶν θυ-
ρέων. But the analogy of other Plays,
where the persons come owt of the
house, because the noise has reached
them within, convinces me that ἔτ᾽ ἀμ-

φιπύλου yap ἔσω μελάθρου is the true
reading, and in the singular example of
Herodotus, éoreGres ἐπὶ τῷ θυρῶνι seems
much more consonant to the position of
men about to go out of the house. But
with οἰκήσεως, which is not the house
only, but the place in which the house
stands, the case is different, for men
stand on the place, but at the door. The
difficulty here is, that we have ἐφεστάναι
joined to ἐπὶ προθύροις, and then with
its own genitive. As there is no force
in μέν, and τῆς Tod τοιούτου is plainly
absurd, I _ propose "Ap οὖν ἐπίμεν τοῖς
τἀγαθοῦ νῦν ἤδη προθύροις; καὶ τῆς οἰκή-
σεως ἐφεστάναι τῆς τούτου που λέγοντες
ἴσως ὀρθῶς ἄν τινα τρόπον φαῖμεν ; 4

“

τὰν,

δ᾿

+ 5

eA. “Ort μέτρου καὶ τῆς ξυμμέτρου φύσεως μὴ τυχοῦσα
καὶ ὁπωσοῦν ᾿ξύγκρασις πᾶσα ἐξἕ a ava yet ἀπόλλυσι
pe τε κεραννύμενα Kal πρώτην αὑτήν. οὐδὲ γὰρ κρᾶαϊς, ἀλλά
τις ἀράτος ξυμπεφορημένη ἀληθῶς ἡ τοιαύτη γίγνεται ἑκά-
στοτε ὄντως τοῖς κεκτημένοις ξυμφορά.

TIPQ. ᾿Αληθέστατα.

Σῶ. Νῦν δὴ καταπέφευγεν ἡμῖν ἡ τἀγαθοῦ δύναμις εἰς
τὴν τοῦ καλοῦ φύσιν. μετριότης γὰρ καὶ ξυμμετρία κάλλος
δήπου καὶ ἀρετὴ πανταχοῦ ξυμβαίνει γίγνεσθαι.

ΠΡΩ. [Πἀνυ μὲν οὗν.

ZQ. Kat μὴν ἀλήθειάν γε ἔφαμεν αὐτοῖς ἐν TH κράσει
μεμίχθαι.

ΠΡΩ. [Πάνυ γε.

ZQ. Οὐκοῦν εἰ μὴ μιᾷ δυνάμεθα ἰδέᾳ τὸ ἀγαθὸν θηρεῦσαι,
σὺν τρισὶ λαβόντες. κάλλει καὶ ξυμμετρίᾳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, λέγω-
μεν ὡς τοῦτο οἷον ἕν ὀρθότατ᾽ ἂν αἰτιασαίμεθ᾽ ἂν τῶν ἐν TH
ξυμμίξει, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὡς ἀγαθὸν ὃν τοιαύτην αὐτὴν γεγο-

ΓΒ κνέναι.
ITPQ. ᾿Ορθότατα μὲν οὖν.
Al. DQ. Ἤδη τοίνυν, ὦ Πρώταρχε.: ἱκανὸς ἡμῖν γένοιτ᾽
dv ὁστισοῦν κριτὴς ἡδονῆς τε πέρι καὶ φρονήσεως, ὁπότερον
αὐτοῖν τοῦ ἀρίστου ξυγγενέστερόν τε καὶ τιμιώτερον ἐν
} ἀνθρώποις τέ ἐστι καὶ θεοῖς.
| ΠΡΩ. Ajrov μέν, ὅμως δ᾽ οὖν τῷ λόγῳ ἐπεξελθεῖν
βέλτιον...

ΣΩ. Kad’ ἑν ἕκαστον τοίνυν τῶν τριῶν πρὸς τὴν ἡδονὴν
καὶ τὸν νοῦν κρίνωμεν. δεῖ γὰρ ἰδεῖν ποτέρῳ μᾶλλον ξυγγενὲς
ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἀπονεμοῦμεν.

IPQ. Κάλλους καὶ ἀληθείας καὶ μετριότητος πέρι
λέγεις:

2Q. Nai. πρῶτον δέ γε ἀληθείας λαβοῦ, ὦ Πρώταρχε:'

ἀυμφορά] Observe the play on the | τρίοιν, i.¢., Tov rplow, or τὸ ἐν τρίσιν,
si at as we are accustomed incorrectly to

ὡς τοῦτο οἷον ἔν] Isuspect | write it.
ὌΝ τοῦτ’ μιν is a corruption of τοῦ-

χολὺν. ἐπισχὼν Xpov
soaps τῳ m woos: ἐλπθέρησα

νων: νοῦς δὲ ἤτοι ταὐτὸν καὶ ἀλήθειά ἐστιν ἢ πάντων ὁμοιό- Ἢ ͵
τατόν τε καὶ ἀληθέστατον. Α , Ss Ἢ

ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο Τὴν Wei ὡσαύτως Ἂ
σκέψαι, πότερον ἡδονὴ Pare: ἢ φρόνησις ἡδονῆς πλείω

ἽΝ.

κέκτηται; 5

TPQ. i sterks ye καὶ ταύτην σκέψιν προβέβληκας.
οἶμαι γὰρ ἡδονῆς μὲν καὶ περιχαρείας οὐδὲν τῶν ὄντων ἰόν ἐμ
κὸς ἀμδῥόσενον οὐρεῖν ἄν τινα, νοῦ δὲ. καὶ ἐπιστήμης ἐμμε-
τρότερον οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἕν ποτε.

ZQ. Karas εἴρηκας. ὅμως δ᾽ ἔτι λέγε τὸ τήφου ὙΜῊΝ
ἡμῖν κάλλους μετείληφε πλεῖον ἢ τὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς γένος; ὥστε
εἶναι καλλίω νοῦν ἡδονῆς. ἢ τοὐναντίους

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὖν φρόνησιν μὲν καὶ νοῦν, ὦ Seco
οὐδεὶς πώποτε οὔθ᾽ ὕπαρ οὔτ᾽ ὄναρ αἰσχρὸν οὔτε εἶδεν οὔτε
ἐπενόησεν οὐδαμῇ οὐδαμῶς οὔτε γιγνόμενον οὔτε ὄντα οὔτε
ἐσόμενον.

2Q. Ὀρθῶς.

~TIPQ. Ἡδονάς δέ γέ που, καὶ ταῦτα σχεδὸν τὰς
μόγίσται, ὅταν ἴδωμεν ἡἠόόμεσον ὁντινοῦν, ἢ τὸ vedere
ἐπ᾿ αὐταῖς ἢ τὸ πάντων αἴσχιστον ἑπόμενον ὁρῶντες αὐτοί
τε αἰσχυνόμεθα καὶ ἀφανίζοντες Apr Toe ὅ τι μάλιστα,
νυκτὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα διδόντες, ὡς φῶς οὐ δέον ὁ ὁρᾶν αὐτά.

ΣΩ. ἹἸΠάντη δὴ φήσεις, o ΠΡρώταρχε, ὑπό τε ἀγγέλων q
πέμπων καὶ παροῦσι φράζων, ὡς ἡδονὴ κτῆμα οὐκ ἔστι πρῶ-
τον οὐδ᾽ αὖ δεύτερον, ἀλλὰ πρῶτον μέν TH περὶ μέτρον Kal

᾿Αλλ οὖν] Here again the MSS. and | in answer to a previous question, and ἡ

Edd. have “Ap’ οὖν, which is evidently | where the only answer ΜΌΝΕ by the nae τῇ
out of place where an admission is made | speaker is Ὀρθῶς. } (δ

νυ “ὟΝ Σ᾿
a ὁ μὰ “Ὁ τ" ; > .- >

Kal πάντα ὁπόσα τοιαῦτα xpi νομίζειν fg

. Φαίνεται γοῦν ἐκ τῶν viv λεγομένων.

), Δεύτερον μὴν περὶ τὸ σύμμετρον καὶ καλὸν καὶ τὸ
λεον καὶ ἱκανὸν καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὁπόσα τῆς γενεᾶς αὖ ταύτης
Rr Seats)

IPQ. "Ἔοικε γοῦν.

>Q T'o , , ς ee βία... ’ a A van
: Ξ O τοινὺν τρίτον; ὡς ἡ ἐμὴ μαντεία, VOUV KaL φρό-

᾿ς γησιν τιθεὶς οὐκ ἂν μέγα τι τῆς ἀληθείας παρεξέλθοις.

ΠΡΩ. Ἴσως. ᾿

ΣΩ. *Ap’ ouv ov τέταρτα, ἃ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῆς ἔθεμεν,
ἐπιστήμας τε καὶ τέχνας καὶ δόξας ὀρθὰς λεχθείσας, ταῦτ᾽
εἶναι τὰ πρὸς τοῖς τρισὶ τέταρτα, εἴπερ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἐστὶ
μᾶλλον τῆς ἡδονῆς ξυγγενῆ;

ΠΡΩ. Tay’ ἄν.

2ZQ. Πέμπτας τοίνυν, ἃς ἡδονὰς ἔθεμεν ἀλύπους ὁρισά-
μενοι, καθαρὰς ἐπονομάσαντες τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῆς, ἐπιστήμαις,
τὰς δὲ αἰσθήσεσιν, ἑπομένας 3 '

HPQ. Ἴσως.

2Q. “Extn δ᾽ ἐν γενεᾷ, φησὶν ᾿Ορφεύς, καταπαύσατε
κόσμον ἀοιδῆς" ἀτὰρ κινδυνεύει καὶ ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος ἐν
ἕκτῃ καταπεπαυμένος εἶναι κρίσει. τὸ δὴ μετὰ ταῦθ᾽ ἡμῖν
οὐδὲν λοιπὸν πλὴν ὥσπερ κεφαλὴν ἀποδοῦναι τοῖς εἰρημέ-
— vols.
| ΠΡΩ. Odxovv χρή.
42. DQ. Ἴθι δή, τὸ τρίτον τῷ σωτῆρι τὸν αὐτὸν δια-
μαρτυράμενοι λόγον ἐπεξέλθωμεν.

IPQ. [Ποῖον δή:

ΣΩ. PirnBos τἀγαθὸν ἐτίθετο ἡμῖν ἡδονὴν εἶναι πᾶσαν
καὶ παντελῆ.

τὴν ἀΐδιον ηὑρῆσθαι φύσιν] I have ἐπιστήμαις] The MSS. have ἐπιστή-

discussed the proper reading and inter- | was, tats 5é—The scribe was put out by
pretation of this passage in my Intro- | the want of ras δέ; but it is under-

duction. stood in τὰς μὲν according to a common
| τέταρτα] If this word is in its right | idiom.
_ place here, it is of no use lower down; τὸ τρίτον τῷ σωτῆρι] A common

but it seems better placed there than | proverb for adding the finishing stroke
here. Perhaps the first τέταρτα is a | to any performance. The third libation
corruption from πέφανται. ᾿ was offered to Ζεὺς Σωτήρ.

(7 aan τὸ δέ γε μετὰ τοῦτο
κατιδὼν ἅπερ νῦν ἫΝ διελήλυθα, καὶ δυσχε
βου λόγον οὐ Μόνον. ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλων. πολλάκις.
ὡς ἡδονῆς γε νοῦς εἴη μακρῷ βέλτιόν τε καὶ ἄμεινον *
ἀνθρώπων βίῳ. pe he lee

TPQ. Ἦν ταῦτα.

ZQ. Ὑποπτεύων δέ γε καὶ ἄλλα εἶναι πολλὰ εἶπον, ὡς.
εἰ φανείη τι τούτων ἀμφοῖν βέλτιον, ὑ ὑπὲρ τῶν δευτερείων “
πρὸς ἡδονὴν ξυνδιαμαχοίμην, ἡδονὴ δὲ καὶ δευτερείων στερή-
σοιτο. ;

IIPQ. Εἶπες γὰρ οὖν. ͵ a
2Q. Kai μετὰ ταῦτά ye πάντων ἱκανώτατον τούτοιν ov-
δέτερον ἱκανὸν ἐφάνη.

TIPQ. ᾿Αληθέστατα.

2Q. Οὐκοῦν παντάπασιν ἐν τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ καὶ νοῦς
>) , A e A , ς , , \ ,
ἀπήλλακτο καὶ ἡδονὴ μή τοι τἀγαθόν γε αὐτὸ μηδέτερον
αὐτοῖν εἶναι στερόμενον αὐταρκείας καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἱκανοῦ καὶ
τελέου δυνάμεως :

ΠΡΩ. ᾿Ορθότατα.

Σ(). Davrévros δέ γε ἄλλου τρίτου κρείττονος τούτοιν
ἑκατέρου, μυρίῳ αὖ νοῦς ἡδονῆς οἰκειότερον καὶ προσφυέστε-
ρον πέφανται νῦν τῆ τοῦ νικῶντος ἰδέᾳ.

ΠΡΩ. Πῶς γὰρ οὔ:

ZQ. Οὐκοῦν πέμπτον κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν, ἣν νῦν ὁ λόγος
kJ , , 3 a e ~ « ~ ,
ἀπεφήνατο, γίγνοιτ᾽ av ἡ τῆς ἡδονῆς δύναμις.

ΠΡΩ. Ἔοικεν.

ZQ. Πρῶτον δέ γ᾽, οὐδ᾽ av οἱ πάντες βόες τε καὶ ἵπποι

A > , ’ A Ἂν, ἰὸς , , @
καὶ τἄλλα ξύμπαντα θηρία φῶσι τῷ TO χαίρειν διώκειν" οἷς
πιστεύοντες, ὥσπερ μάντεις ὄρνισιν, οἱ πολλοὶ κρίνουσι τὰς
ε \ > \ ek. ep > , 3 ‘ ᾿ ΡΩΝ
ἡδονὰς εἰς τὸ ζῆν ὑμῖν εὖ κρατίστας εἶναι, καὶ τοὺς Onpiate

πρῶτον δέ γ᾽, οὐδ᾽ ἄν] The second | clare it, not by word, but. by oy by
class of MSS. and Eusebius have οὐκ ἄν, following pleasure; with &
which, if it be written οὔ, «év—would | compare Laws. 899 ΕΒ, ἔν τε Μούσαις oon

be no way inferior to that in the text. ὀρθῶς ὑμνουμέναι: not by the Muses, but
φῶσι τῷ τὸ χαίρειν διώκειν] They de- | in songs inspired. ἐν them. . τ

Sai a ee. ὁ ς δὲ AER. oe : MR.
as Sony: vb) “EP Avie m 2ivn Oe ig ov a fam ry el
ay ERY Ν᾿ oy tei t ian ΝΥ ας ἢ

Ἢ

APPENDIX.

Φιλολάου.

Θεωρεῖν δεῖ τὰ ἔργα καὶ τὰν ἐσσίαν τῶ ἀριθμῶ καττὰν δύναμιν ἅ τις ἐντὶν ἐν
τᾷ δεκάδι. Μεγάλα γὰρ καὶ παντελὴς καὶ παντοεργὸς, καὶ θείω καὶ οὐρανίω
βίω καὶ ἀνθρωπίνω ἀρχὰ καὶ ἁγεμὼν 1 κοινωνίας ἁ δύναμις ἁ τᾶς δεκάδος.
Avev δὲ ταύτας πάντ᾽ ἄπειρα καὶ ἄδηλα καὶ ἀφανῆ. 3. Τνωμονικὰ γὰρ ἁ φύσις
& τῶ ἀριθμῷ καὶ ἁγεμονικὰ καὶ διδασκαλικὰ τῶ ἀπορουμένω παντὸς καὶ
ἀγνοουμένω ὅ παντί. Οὐ γὰρ ἧς δῆλον οὐδένι οὐδὲν τῶν πραγμάτων οὔτε
αὐτῶν ποθ᾽ αὑτὰ, οὔτε ἄλλω ποτ᾽ ἄλλο εἰ μὴ ἧς ἀριθμὸς καὶ ἁ τούτω ἐσσία.
Νῦν δὲ οὗτος καττὰν ψυχὰν ἁρμόσδων αἰσθήσει πάντα, γνωστὰ καὶ ποτάγορα
ἀλλαλοις κατὰ γνώμονος φύσιν ἀπεργάζεται, σωματῶν καὶ σχίζων τοὺς λόγους
χωρὶς ἑκάστους τῶν πραγμάτων, τῶν τὲ ἀπείρων καὶ τῶν περαινόντων. “Idols
δέ κα οὐ μόνον ἐν τοῖς δαιμονίοις καὶ θείοις πράγμασι τὰν TH ἀριθμῶ φύσιν καὶ
τὰν δύναμιν ἰσχύουσαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρωπικοῖς ἔργοις καὶ λόγοις πασὶ
παντᾷ, καὶ κατὰ τὰς δαμιουργίας τὰς τεχνικὰς πάσας, καὶ κατὰ τὰν μουσικάν.
Ψεῦδος δὲ οὐδὲν δέχεται ἁ τῶ ἀριθμῶ φύσις, οὐδὲ ἁρμονία οὐδὲ γὰρ οἰκεῖον
αὐτοῖς, ἐστί. Tas γὰρ ἀπείρω καὶ ἀνοήτω καὶ ἀλόγω φύσιος τὸ ψεῦδος καὶ ὁ
φθόνος ἐστί. Ψεῦδος δὲ οὐδαμῶς ἐς ἀριθμὸν ὅ ἐπιπνεῖ, πολέμιον γὰρ καὶ
ἐχθρὸν τᾷ φύσει τὸ ψεῦδος, ἁ δ᾽ ἀλάθεια οἰκεῖον καὶ σύμφυτον τᾳ τῶ ἀριθμῶ
γενεᾷ.

Stob. Eel. Phys. i. 1, 2.

Φιλολάου Πυθαγορείου ἐκ τοῦ περὶ Ψυχῆς. Stob.

Ecl. Phys. i. 20, 2.

Ilap ὃ καὶ ἄφθαρτος καὶ ἀκαταπόνατος διαμένει τὸν ἄπειρον αἰῶνα. οὔτε
‘ »ἤ θ aN 2. ἡ ὃ , + WR ¢ θη +s > + 6
yap ἔντοσθεν ἄλλα τις αἰτία δυναμικώτερα αὐτᾶς εὑρεθήσεται, οὔτ᾽ ἔκτοσθεν,
φθεῖραι αὐτὸν δυναμένα. ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ὅδε ὁ κόσμος ἐξ αἰῶνος καὶ εἰς αἰῶνα διαμένει,
4 a a
els ὑπὸ ἑνὸς Stay συγγενέων καὶ κρατίστω καὶ ἀνυπερθέτω κυβερνώμενος.
a \ ‘ \ > \ a , , ‘ φ᾿ ς s a 2A ‘
Ἔχει δὲ καὶ τὰν ἀρχὰν τᾶς κινάσιός τε καὶ μεταβολᾶς ὁ κόσμος εἷς ἐὼν, καὶ
συνεχὴς καὶ φύσει διαπνεόμενος καὶ περιαγεόμενος ἐξ ἀρχιδίου. Καὶ τὸ μὲν
> , > a Η ᾿ , > ΄, ως ei.” > , ae δ ‘
ἀμετάβλατον αὐτοῦ, τὸ δὲ μετάβαλλον ἐστί καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀμετάβολον ἀπὸ τᾶς τὸ
ὅλον περιεχούσας Ψυχᾶς μεχρὶ σελάνας περαιοῦται, τὸ δὲ μετάβαλλον ἀπὸ τᾶς

1 MSS. κοινωνοῦσα... .. δύναμις καὶ | ἀλόγω καὶ ἀτάκτω φύσιος ἐς τὰ πράγ-

tds §. I have endeavoured to make | ματα; in this fragment a little above

sense of the passage which seems too | read αὐτὰ αὑτόθεν, φανερὸν ὅτι.

corrupt for any certain restoration. 6 Gaisf. τῶ ovyyeréw. Compare
2 The authorities vary between νομικὰ | Onatus apud Stob. i. 2, 39. Tol δὲ

and γνωμικά, which both point to my
conjecture. But compare Archyt. ap.
Stob. i. 40, 6, κατὰ ψυχὰν γνώμιες τέτ-
ταρες.

3 πάρεντιΐ

4 @ddos? Compare Stob. i. 2, 39, τὸ
δὲ θνατὸν καὶ θολομιγές.

ὅ Probably ἐμπίτνε. Evpvcos περὶ
τύχας. Stob. i. 6, 17, ἐμπεσούσας Tas

λέγοντες Eva θεὸν ἐἶμεν, ἀλλὰ μὴ πολλώς,
ἁμαρτάνοντι' τὸ γὰρ μέγιστον ἀξίωμα Tas
θείας ὑπεροχᾶς οὐ συνθεωρεῦντι. λέγω
δὲ τὸ ἄρχεν καὶ καθαγέεσθαι τῶν ὁμοίων.
In the same extract, read οὐ κά τοι ὃ.
for οὐκ ἔτι δύναιντο, ἐκ δυοῖν ἅρμοσται,
for ἐκ δύο συν ἁ., ὅς ya for οἱ γάρ, δεῖ
ὧν for δι᾿ ὧν.

Soe μεχρὶ τᾶς yas. Ἐπεὶ δέ, γε, cal τὸ κίνε
περιπολεῖ, τὸ δὲ κινεόμενον ὡς τὸ κίνεον ἄγει διατίθ.
ἀεικίνατον τὸ δὲ ἀειπαθὲς εἶμεν, καὶ τὸ μὲν νῶ καὶ “ψυχᾶς
γενέσιος καὶ μεταβολᾶς" καὶ τὸ μὲν πρᾶτον τᾷ δυνάμει. καὶ ὑπερέχο
ὕστερον καὶ καθυπερεχόμενον. τὸ δ᾽ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τούτων, τοῦ μὲν ἀεὶ,
θείου, τοῦ δὲ del μεταβάλλοντος γεννατοῦ, fend Aw καὶ καλῶς ley
λέγεν κόσμον ἦμεν ἐνέργειαν ἀΐδιον θεῶ τε καὶ *yevéctos κατὰ συνακολουθίαν —
τᾶς μεταβλατικᾶς φύσιος" καὶ 6 μὲν ἐς ἀεὶ διαμένει κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ὡσαύτως,
ἔχων, τὰ δὲ γιγνόμενα καὶ φθειρόμενα πολλά. καὶ τὰ μὲν φθορᾷ ὄντα καὶ φύσει va

ὃ κατὰ μορφὰς σώζεται, τᾷ γονᾷ πάλιν τὰν αὐτὰν ge ae ἀποκαθίσταντα͵ τῷ

γεννήσαντι πατέρι καὶ δημιουργῷ.

Ἔκ τῶν Φιλολάου Περὶ Κύσμου. Stob. Ecl. Phys. i. 21, 7.

3 τὶ ἂν 3 , a , a» x ro ,
Ανάγκα τὰ ἐόντα εἶμεν πάντα ἢ περαίνοντα, ἢ ἄπειρα, ἢ περαίνοντά τε καὶ
> ,Ἱ δὲ ΄ 4. 5 Ν > \ , , ΓΞ ΧΕ. ὀ
ἄπειρα: ἄπειρα δὲ μόνον “οὐ Ka εἴη. ᾿Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν φαίνεται οὔτ᾽ ἐκ περαινόντων
πάντων ἐόντα, οὔτ᾽ ἐξ ἀπείρων πάντων, δῆλον τἄρα ὅτι ἐκ περαινόντων τε καὶ
a lal 4 ΄“
ἀπείρων ὅ τε κόσμος καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ συναρμόχθη. Δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς
ἔργοις: Τὰ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐκ περαινόντων, περαίνοντα, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ περαινόντων
τε καὶ ἀπείρων περαίνοντά τε καὶ οὐ περαίνοντα, τὰ δ᾽ ἐξ ἀπείρων ἄπειρα
φανέονται.
Ά , 4 \ ’ 3 διὸ ἂν > er XN Ey
Kai πάντα γα pay τὰ γιγνωσκόμενα ἀριθμὸν ἔχοντι. οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε οὐδὲν οὔτε
“~ a δε oA , σ A > \ 4 4 A a”
vonOnpev οὔτε γνωσθῆμεν ἄνευ τούτω. Ὅ ya μὰν ἀριθμὸς ἔχει δύο μὲν ἴδια
wa x
εἴδη, περισσὸν καὶ ἄρτιον, τρίτον δὲ dm ἀμφοτέρων μιχθέντων, ἀρτιοπέρισσον.
ε ΄ A in \ ὦ “ , ὃ , 6 \
Ἑκατέρω δὲ τῶ εἴδεος πολλαὶ μορφαὶ, ds ἕκαστον αὔταυτο “ δημαίνει. Περὶ
- a oh
δὲ φύσιος καὶ ἁρμονίας ὧδε exer’ ἁ μὲν. ἐστὼ τῶν πραγμάτων ἀΐδιος ἔσσα καὶ
7 > \ , 4 / > \ Ἀ » > / > 4 “-“ λ ’ a
αὐτὰ μόνα, φύσις θεία ἐντὶ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρωπίναν ἐνδέχεται γνῶσιν, πλάν ya ἢ
φ Ἶ a ΄ A
ὅτι οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ ἧς οὐθένι τῶν ἐόντων καὶ γιγνωσκομένων ὑφ᾽ ἁμῶν 8 γεγενῆσθαι,
μὴ ὑπαρχοίσας 9 τᾶς ἐστοῦς τῶν πραγμάτων ἐξ ὧν συνέστα ὁ κόσμος, καὶ τῶν
περαινόντων καὶ τῶν ἀπείρων. ᾿Ἐπεὶ δὲ 10 ταὶ ἀρχαὶ ὑπᾶρχον οὐχ ὅμοιαι οὐδ᾽
Suddvr » " 297 113 \ aha 67 > \ é ,
ὁμόφυλοι ἔσσαι, ἤδη ἀδύνατον As Ka αὐτοῖς κοσμηθῆμεν, αἱ μὴ ἁρμονία
ἐπεγέ Rs ἄ Τὰ μὲν ὧν ὅμοια καὶ ὁμόφυλα
πεγένετο, ““ᾧ τινι ἄρα τρόπῳ ἐγένετο. “Τὰ μὲν ὧν ὅμοια καὶ ὁμόφυ
, , , a ΄“
ἁρμονίας οὐδὲν ἐπεδέοντο, τὰ δὲ ἀνόμοια μηδὲ ὁμόφυλα μηδὲ ἰσοτελῆ ἀνάγκα τᾷ
, ad > > / ’,
τοιαύτᾳ ἁρμονίᾳ συγκεκλεῖσθαι, αἱ μέλλοντι ἐν κόσμῳ κατέχεσθαι.

Platonis Timeus, 35 A.

co 3 3 es γε \ ΠΝ Ἔσο ’ ee oe 3 ‘ \
Τῆς ἀμερίστου καὶ det κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἐχούσης οὐσίας, καὶ τῆς αὖ περὶ τὰ
“@ a -“
σώματα γιγνομένης μεριστῆς, τρίτον ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἐν μέσῳ συνεκεράσατο οὐσίας

1 Gaisf. ἔχειν ἔλεγε. gible world could not have been pro-
2 Perhaps yevéropos, duced,
3 Gaisf. καί. 7 Gaisf. αὐνὰ μὲν ἁ φύσις θείαν τε καὶ
4 Gaisf. οὐκ ἀεί. οὐκ ἀνθρωπίναν. Afterwards πλέον γα.
5 A corrupt word, - 8 Gaisf. from Béckh. γνωσθῆμεν. MS.
6 This has been misunderstood ; the | yeyvéc@at.

sense is, that all we can know of the 9 Gais. αὐτᾶς ἐντός. MS. ras ἐντοῦς.

eternal substance is that without it, 10 Gaisf. re ἀρχαί.

as including both the limiting and 11 Gaisf. ἧς ἂν καί. .

the unlimited principles, the intelli- 12 Gaisf. ᾧτινι ἄν. MS. ᾧτινι ὃν ἄν.

APPENDIX. IoI
be εἶδος, τῆς τε ταὐτοῦ φύσεως αὖ πέρι καὶ τῆς Odrépov ἱ κατὰ ταὐτά. Καὶ

᾿ξυνέστ: ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ τε ἀμεροῦς αὐτῶν καὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὰ σώματα μεριστοῦ.
καὶ τρία λαβὼν ὄντα αὐτὰ συνεκεράσατο εἰς μίαν πάντα ἰδέαν, τὴν θατέρου φύσιν
δύσμικτον οὖσαν εἰς ταὐτὸν ξυναρμόττων βίᾳ.

ἐκ τοῦ ᾿Αρχύτου περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν. Stob. Ecl. i. 35, 2.

᾿Ανάγκα καὶ δύο ἀρχὰς ἦμεν τῶν ὄντων, μίαν μὲν τὰν συστοιχίαν ἔχοισαν
τῶν τεταγμένων καὶ ὁριστῶν, ἑτέραν δὲ τὰν συστοιχίαν ἔχοισαν τῶν ἀτάκτων
καὶ ᾿ἀορίστων. Καὶ τὰν μὲν ῥητὰν καὶ λόγον ἔχοισαν καὶ τὰ ἐόντα ὁμοίως
συνέχειν, καὶ τὰ μὴ ἐόντα ὁρίζειν καὶ συντάσσειν : πλατιάζουσαν γὰρ ἀεὶ τοῖς
γινομένοις εὐλόγως καὶ εὐρυθμῶς " ἀνάγειν ταῦτα καὶ ὅτῷ καθ᾽ ὅλω οὐσίας τε
καὶ ἰδέας μεταδίδομεν; τὰν δ᾽ ἄλογον καὶ ἄρρητον καὶ τὰ συντεταγμένα
λυμαίνεσθαι καὶ τὰ ἐς γένεσιν δὲ καὶ ὠσίαν παραγινόμενα διαλύειν, πλατιά-
ζουσαν γὰρ ἀεὶ τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐξομοιοῦν *adraira. "ANN ἐπείπερ ἀρχαὶ δύο
κατὰ γένος ἀντιδιαιρούμεναι τὰ πράγματα τυγχάνοντι, τῷ τὰν μὲν ἀγαθοποιὸν
τὰν δ᾽ ἦμεν κακοποιὸν, ἀνάγκα καὶ δύο λόγους ἦμεν, τὸν μὲν ἕνα τᾶς ἀγαθοποιῶ
φύσιος, τὸν δ᾽ ἕνα τὰς κακοποιῶ. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὰ τέχνᾳ καὶ τὰ φύσει γιγνό-
μενα Sei τούτων πρᾶτον μετειληφέν, τᾶς τὲ ὑμορφοῦς καὶ τᾶς οὐσίας. Καὶ ἁ
μὲν μορφὼ ἐστὶν 74 αἰτία τοῦ τόδε τι ἦμεν. ἁ δὲ ὠσία τὸ ὑποκειμένον, παραδε-
χόμενον τὰν μορφώ. Οὔτε δὲ τᾷ ὠσίᾳ οἷόν τε ἐστὶ μορφᾶς μετεῖμεν αὐτᾷ ἐξ
αὐτᾶς, οὔτε μὰν τὰν poppe γενέσθαι περὶ τὰν ὠσίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον ἑτέραν
τινὰ ἦμεν αἰτίαν τὰν κινάσοισαν τὰν ἐστὼ τῶν πραγμάτων ἐπὶ τὰν μορφώ,
ταύταν δὲ τὰν πράταν τᾷ δυνάμει καὶ καθυπερτάταν ἦμεν τᾶν ἀλλᾶν. ὀνομάζεσθαι
δ᾽ αὐτὰν ποθάκει θεόν. ὥστε τρεῖς ἀρχὰς ἦμεν ἤδη, τόν τε θεὸν, καὶ τὰν
ἐστὼ τῶν πραγμάτων καὶ τὰν μορφώ. Καὶ τὸν μὲν θεὸν τεχνίταν καὶ τὸν
κινέοντα, τὰν δ᾽ ἐστὼ τὰν ὕλαν καὶ τὸ κινεόμενον, τὰν δὲ poppe τάν τέχναν καὶ

being connected the one with the ἔσος,
the other with the ἄνισος λόγος. The
odd number is the product of τὸ ἄπειρον,
the even of τὸ πέρας, whence it would
seem to follow that τὸ ἄρτιον and τὸ
περιττὸν are not originaliy in number
itself, but arise from the application of
number to περαίνοντα and ἄπειρα. The
author of the following extract falsely at-
tributed to Archytas throws considerable
light upon the fragments of Philolaus ;

1Commonly θάτέρου. Kal τατὰ ταῦτα.
I have altered the text according to the
evident requirement of the sense. The
passage itself has been appended as
serving to illustrate the πέρας in the
Philebus. The soul of the world is the
πέρας of the whole and of all its parts;
and we here see that this soul partakes
of the opposite ἀρχαί, τὸ ἕν καὶ ταὐτὸν
and τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ θάτερον. In one
sense, πέρας may be called number,

since number is the procession of the one
to the infinite ; in another sense, it’ is
the opposite of number, for the word
number is also applicable to the infinite
itself, ἡ ἀόριστος δύας. The περαίνοντα
of Philolaus appear to be of a different
kind, for these, as well as the ἄπειρα,
are in the ἐστὼ τῶν πραγμάτων ante-
cedently to ἁρμονία. They are the two
elements which God (ὑπέστησεν) made
the basis of his creation (Phil. ap.
Syrianum ad Arist. Met. LZ. 14), which
we can know nothing of, except that
without them nothing could have come
into being. They are both αἰσθητὰ
Arist. Nat, Ausc. iii. 4) and xwedpera,

it will be observed that with him ἁ μορφὼ
plays the part.of τὰ περαίνοντα.
2 Gaisford has ἀναγκά from A. and
V. The older reading is far preferable.
3 Gaisf. τό.

4 Commonly αὖ ταῦτα. Gaisf. αὖ-
ταυτα; but the dat. sing. is necessary.

5 Commonly δύο and μετείληφεν. In
a passage of Ocellus Stob. i. 20, 3,
Heeren has improperly changed πέ-
guxev into πεφυκέναι instead of trans-
posing the accent.

6 Commonly μορφῶ; perhaps μορφῶς.

7 Commonly ἐστὶν αἰτία. But A. and
V. have δ᾽ alria,—i.e., A for A.

102

ποθ᾽ ἂν κινέεται ὑπὸ τῶ κινέοντος & ἐστώ. "ANN ἐπεὶ τὸ κινεόμενον « ναντίας —
εαυτῷ δυνάμιας, boxer Tas τῶν ἁπλῶν σωμάτων, τὰ δ᾽ ἐναντία yp =
twos δεῖται καὶ ἑνώσιος, ἀνάγκα ἀριθμῶν δυνάμιας ἘΠ ἀναλογίας καὶ τὰ ἂν τ
ἀριθμοῖς καὶ γεωμετρικοῖς δεικνύμενα παραλαμβάνειν, ἃ καὶ συναρμόσαι. Kal
ἑνῶσαι tray ἐναντιότατα Suvaceira ἐν τᾷ ἐστοῖ τῶν πραγμάτων ποττὰν μορφώ.
Ka@ αὐτὰν μὲν γὰρ ἔσσα ἃ ἐστὼ ἄμορφός ἐστι, κιναθεῖσα δὲ ποττὰν μορφὼ
ἔμμορφος γίνεται καὶ λόγον ἔχοισα τὸν τᾶς συντάξιος. Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ 27d δ
ὃ κινέεται τὸ κινεόμενον ἔστι τὸ πράτως Kiveov: ὥστ᾽ ἀνάγκα τρεῖς ἦμεν τὰ
ἀρχὰς, τάν τε ἐστὼ τῶν πραγμάτων, καὶ τὰν μορφὼ, καὶ τὸ ἐξ αὑτῶ κινατικὸν
καὶ Ξπρᾶτον τᾷ δυνάμει. Τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον οὐ νόον μόνον ἦμεν δεῖ ἀλλὰ καὶ νόω
τι κρέσσον. νόω δὲ κρέσσον ἐστὶν ὅπερ ὀνομάζομεν 4Oedv. Οθεν φανερὸν ὡς
ὁ μὲν τῶ ἴσω λόγος περὶ τὰν ῥητὰν καὶ λόγον ἔ ἔχοισαν φύσιν ἐστίν ὁ δὲ τῶ
ἀνίσω περὶ τὰν ἄλογον καὶ ἄρρητον" αὐτὰ δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἁ ἐστὼ, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο verents
καὶ φθορὰ γίνεται περὶ ταύταν, καὶ οὐκ ἄνευ ταύτας.

Kant’s Anthropology, p. 169.

We may also explain these feelings by the operation which the sensation
of our state produces upon the mind. That which immediately (through
sense) urges me to abandon my state (to come out of it), is unpleasant to me,
it pains mee That which in like manner urges me to maintain it (to remain
in it), is agreeable to me, it gives me pleasure. But we are incessantly
carried along in the stream of Time, and the changes of sensations connected
with it. Now, though the quitting of one moment of time and the entrance
into another is one and the same act (that of change), yet in our thought and
in the consciousness of this change there is a succession, such as belongs to
the connection of cause and effect. The question, then, is, whether the con-
sciousness of quitting the present state, or the prospect of the entrance into
a future one, excites in us the sensation of pleasure? In the former case,
the delight is nothing else than the removal of pain, something negative ;
in the latter it would be an anticipation of some delight; consequently, an
expansion of our state, and so something positive. But we may already
infer, a priori, that the former alone can take place. For time glides from
the present to the future, and not inversely; and since we are compelled
first of all to quit the present, uncertain into what other we are about to
enter, only that it ἐδ another, this alone can be the cause of pleasurable
feeling. Pleasure is the sense of that which promotes life, pain of that
which hinders it. But life (animal life) is, as the physicians have long ago
remarked, a continual play of the antagonism of the two.

Consequently, every pleasure must be preceded by pain; pain is always
the first. For what else would ensue upon a continual advancement of vital
power (which, however, cannot mount beyond a certain degree), but a speedy
death for joy P

1 Koen, when he corrected δυνάσει | and Heeren, δυσκιΨέεται.

1 have

τε into duvaceirat, was unable to cor-
rect the sentence completely, having
before him only the bad reading, τὰ
ἐστὼ without ἐν. This being supplied
from A, and V., the whole passage is
easily restored.

2 MSS. καὶ τὸ δισκινέεται. Gaisf.

changed AIC into ATO.
® MSS. ἀόρατον, absurdly.
4 This is corruptly given in MSS.
θεὸν φανερῶς. ‘O μὲν τῶ tow—. Heeren,
with his usual recklessness, inserts ὧν
after μέν, and thinks he has emended
the passage.

. Read λέγω ὡς πρῶτα.

ψι arty a) eo ' ἊΝ νι, - οἵ —
ENE SReRATESS os ἴον ee -
πεν νος : ΒΑ ae

ADDENDA.

. Read τοὐναντίου.

ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς δὲ τῆς OP

. Insert πάντα.
. Read θαυμάτων.

. Read ὅτι τε νέοι π. ἐ.

Soph. 233 A.

Rep. 265 A. θάττων is opposed to μακροτέρα. See on ph.
T. 525, and Pref. to Ion.

Comp. πάλιν and τρίτον.

. MHAEOIAN = MHAEOPAN. ρ and» are often confounded.

Herod. i. 125. Read φροντίζων δέ, εὕρισκε yap (for εὑρίσκεται)
τ. kK. εἶναι, ἐποίεε δὴ ταῦτα. (Med. and Schell. MSS. δὴ
ταῦτα). hes. 932, φιλαρμάτους ἀλκάς. Buttm. ad Mid.

* Exe. iii., Ζεὺς Νάϊος for vapos.

. Perhaps Οὐδὲν τῶν dd ύτων.
. Restore γίγνεται.
. Perhaps πάντος.

The singular is often followed by ὁπόσοι or
ὁπόσα.

. A similar confusion of the persons is noticed in my edition of

the Phedrus.

A most remarkable corruption in the text of Plato is in Laws.
i. 631, Διπλᾶ δὲ ἀγαθά ἐστι, τὰ μὲν ἀνθρώπινα τὰ δὲ θεῖα.
ἤρτηται δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν θείων Odrepa’ καὶ ἐὰν μὲν δέχηταί τις τὰ
μείζονα πόλις, κτᾶται καὶ τὰ ἐλάττονας, An anonymous author
in Stobeus, quoting this, has παρίστασθαι for πόλις κτᾶται.
They are both corrupted from παρίσταται.

Since writing the above I have heard from Professor W. H.
Thompson that he had anticipated me in restoring ηὑρῆσθαι
for ἡρῆσθαι, or εἰρῆσθαι. I learn from him that there is a
similar confusion in Rep. iv. 429 A. I cannot close this
notice without expressing my great obligations to Professor
Thompson for the many highly valuable suggestions which I
have received from him in the course of this edition.

Ἴ
Ἢ
q
«

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

PA . Plato
“Py 9 Philebus

hy
ΜΕ ha eb gud
byl

y
4

iy
Ny

ptt
its
ἢ

ὌΝ
tims

1a ih
may >
Peery ries tails
URE R EL ea

Ῥ

T 7
᾿ wont .
» NUE Ai hie
eR Mt hala

ἘΠῚ
sat

iota:
ah
r ar
4 "
; t
ἢ ᾿
Fé |
Ἷ 4
Tiida
if
} rey
aS ΘΝ
᾿
ἷ ἦ
}
a ὶ ὦ
}
᾿ ἢ
ἢ
1 a
i
i
ἢ :
teen
ety ἢ y
1
| ἐν
i
Ῥ
0}
Ν ΚΌΨΕ Υἴ δὴ '
\
i
ὶ a
}
ἢ :)
; ᾿
ἀν}
ΥΩ
pla
ἢ
"
{
᾿
ἢ
ὶ
ὶ
ἥ
ἘΣ
Ἰ
1 \
ἡ
ἣ : \
t iit
) ae
᾿ \
1
\
73
ἢ
Ἔχε
ὶ
ἮΙ
᾿ ἡ ἡ
1
᾿
᾿ F
Ἷ ἣ
t 1
Ἧ
ite

ἵ
bene tis
; ris eek

=

aS se τ
a τ΄ τὺ

Wa thn) ne
pal
ἡ

aa Ἢ

Ἢ "ὦ
ὅν
δι

~

tt
vat
Ἧς

ai ser
ἐξ hay) ἢ Ἢ δὴ ie
ΝΕ Bidar aah
ae Ke nei aa
ΗΝ

4)
᾿

4 A. 7% ᾿ τι : 3 i
Arye ΧΙ: ἐν
AL WARP LES
Ht bes ἢ

t
J

ty
ng ὲ

pay
%

Ps

FT

=
StS

sates

(ery
ΠΝ
Wey
AC ys

ΔΉΠΙΝ

=.
=

aS
“>
PS

an

Ses <= =
PE a me Στ μα
: ΡΞ a πε

--

SS a =o
Ἐπ στα =
ee - Ξ

= wr! = δ =
"3. oe
= Ξ =
aie σαν. tess: - 5 eS
Ε ee aa RS
= =
= oe
= aes
ΚΞ

ΞΕ Στ

re

Oy

Ae

ii Hi
ἘΠῚ

ie
ἜΠΗ
et

te
ιν ἄνα

ΞΞ
Ξ : -- i= - ἢ - Ε --
enone ==

Scene e

cae —

ae ates

Ses See το ἂν ἄν eee
ΞΕ - 2 τ
= SS ee

Ζ See

om,

> ay ποτε
SS ο-
2S ;
=2

es 5